In re: Cecilio Dianco

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 7751. June 13, 2018.]

IN RE: DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CECILIO R. DIANCO

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 13, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 7751 (In Re: Disciplinary Complaint against Atty. Cecilio R. Dianco). — In his Letter-Complaint 1 dated January 28, 2008, Judge Edwin B. Buffe (Judge Buffe) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Agustin-Sta. Maria, San Agustin, Romblon, prays that disciplinary action be taken against Atty. Cecilio R. Dianco (Atty. Dianco) for allegedly trifling with the judicial process of the court relative to Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552 and for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Criminal Case No. 4511 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Rama Riño for Grave Threats was filed by one Rolando Ruallo (Ruallo) against Rodolfo R. Riño (Riño), while Criminal Case No. 4552 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rolando Ruallo for Qualified Trespass to Dwelling was initiated by Riño against Ruallo. In both cases, Atty. Dianco represented Riño, albeit as appointed counsel de officio in Criminal Case No. 4511.

The aforementioned criminal cases were originally assigned to Judge Alfonso R. Cawaling (Judge Cawaling) who, early on, inhibited himself from trying said cases because of the administrative case for gross ignorance of the law that Riño filed against him before this Court. In that case, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391, Judge Cawaling was meted the penalty of fine with stern warning.

Prior to his inhibition, however, Judge Cawaling, in an Order dated October 18, 2000, dismissed Criminal Case No. 4552 for Riño's refusal to sign the subpoena served upon him and for his failure to attend the preliminary investigation concerning his complaint. CAIHTE

These two criminal cases were then assigned to Judge Peter M. Montojo (Judge Montojo), who also subsequently inhibited himself in Criminal Case No. 4511, again, upon motion of Riño. Judge Cirile Maduro Foja (Judge Foja) took over the said case. In the course of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4511, Riño filed an urgent motion seeking a joint hearing or trial of Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552, arguing that these cases were inseparable and connected to each other.

Judge Buffe, who meanwhile succeeded Judge Foja in Criminal Case No. 4511, also assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 4552 on account of the aforementioned urgent motion.

Thereafter, Riño filed a Motion dated August 24, 2007, praying for the reinstatement of the criminal complaint in Criminal Case No. 4552 that Judge Cawaling dismissed in his adverted Order dated October 18, 2000. Said motion was denied by Judge Buffe in his Order of October 17, 2007 for belated filing and for lack of merit.

On even date, Judge Buffe also issued an Omnibus Order, denying another urgent motion filed by Riño, which sought the downgrade of the charge in Criminal Case No. 4511 from Grave Threats to Other Light Threats.

Subsequently, Riño filed two administrative cases, 2 docketed as OCA IPI No. 07-1938-MTJ and OCA IPI No. 07-1939-MTJ, in relation to Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552, respectively, against Judge Buffe.

In his complaint in OCA IPI No. 07-1938-MTJ, Riño alleged that Judge Buffe grossly erred in his appreciation of the law and in his interpretation of the statement, "Umuwi ka na, at kapag hindi ka umuwi ay papatayin kita."3 According to Riño, Judge Buffe, in Criminal Case No. 4511, considered this statement as not conditional, among others. On the other hand, in OCA IPI No. 07-1939-MTJ, Riño contended that Judge Buffe committed grave error in taking over Criminal Case No. 4552, since it supposedly remained with Judge Montojo, as it was only on February 4, 2008 that Judge Montojo voluntarily inhibited from the said case. In both these administrative complaints, Riño stated that Judge Buffe was involved in a supposed "Package Deal" with very powerful politicians, concerning Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552, in order to ensure the conviction of Riño. DETACa

In view of the foregoing circumstances, Judge Buffe commenced the instant complaint against Atty. Dianco, supposedly the author of the administrative complaints hurled against Judge Buffe. As alleged, Riño merely affixed his signatures in the said administrative complaints. According to Judge Buffe, it is his duty under Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct 4 to initiate the instant case for disciplinary measure against Atty. Dianco for his unprofessional conduct in filing administrative complaints against him.

In his letter-complaint, Judge Buffe claims that Atty. Dianco "trifled" with the judicial process when he stated in his administrative complaints that Judge Buffe was implicated in a "Package Deal," related to Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552, involving very powerful politicians with the end in view of securing the conviction of Riño in the shortest possible time. Judge Buffe also describes the words used by Atty. Dianco in his complaints as inappropriate for an officer of the court.

Judge Buffe further cites Atty. Dianco's violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as follows: (1) Canon 1 for deceitful conduct; (2) Canon 7 for conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law; (3) Canons 8 and 11 for abusive, improper, offensive, and menacing language; (4) Canon 10 for doing or consenting to falsehood, misleading the court, misrepresentation in the contents of the complaint-affidavit in Criminal Case No. 4552 and the counter-charge in Criminal Case No. 4511; and (5) Canon 12, Rule 12.04 for unduly delaying the case.

On May 6, 2008, Judge Buffe filed his Supplemental Complaint 5 dated April 14, 2008. In it, he alleges that Atty. Dianco filed the two administrative cases against him to ensure his inhibition from Criminal Case No. 4511. He further claims that Atty. Dianco made further improper and offensive remarks before his court, and even accused him of going to the house of the "No. 1 right hand" of the congressman before the January 25, 2008 hearing of Criminal Case No. 4511.

In his Comment/Answer 6 dated July 16, 2008, Atty. Dianco sought the immediate dismissal of the complaint. He pointed out, among others, that both the letter-complaint and the supplemental complaint were not verified, as required by Sec. 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and the real complainant in both the administrative cases against Judge Buffe is his client, Riño. As Atty. Dianco further claims, all he did as counsel de officio in Criminal Case No. 4511 and as private counsel in Criminal Case. No. 4552 was only to point out or expose the illegal, improper, unethical and malicious court orders of Judge Buffe. Judge Buffe, Atty. Dianco adds, should not judicially harass him, since he was merely defending a client. Atty. Dianco denies allegations of trifling with the judicial process of the court, noting that it was Judge Buffe who has full control of the court records and proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552. aDSIHc

On November 27, 2008, Atty. Dianco filed his Final Comments, Answers and Manifestations 7 dated November 20, 2008, wherein he claims that in the August 22, 2008 court hearing in Criminal Case No. 4511, Judge Buffe successively cited him for direct contempt: one, for 30 minutes imprisonment; and another, for a fine of PhP1,000. According to Atty. Dianco, the foregoing penalties thus imposed were excessive, considering that Judge Buffe is a judge of a municipal trial court. Hence, it was Judge Buffe, so Atty. Dianco states, who trifled with the judicial process of the court, and not him.

After evaluating the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court finds the administrative complaint filed by Judge Buffe to be well-taken.

It should be noted that both OCA IPI No. 07-1938-MTJ and OCA IPI No. 07-1939-MTJ, which were consolidated with OCA IPI-08-2044-MTJ, 8 were dismissed by this Court on March 1, 2010 for lack of merit. In this respect, the ruling of this Court in Visbal v. Buban9 is enlightening:

A lawyer owes to society and to the court the duty not to stir up litigation. The Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest encourage any suit or proceeding." Thus, a lawyer is ordered "not to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator of concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and justice." In fact, lawyers are called upon to resist the whims and caprices of their clients and to temper the latter's propensity to litigate because the Lawyer's Oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his clients. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)

As a lawyer, Atty. Dianco ought to be aware that "if a court official or employee or a lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay." 10

There is strong reason to believe that Atty. Dianco prepared the administrative complaints against Judge Buffe, albeit Riño's signature appeared on them. This conclusion is implicit from the following admissions in Atty. Dianco's comment/answer:

[1] I repeat, I have nothing personal against Judge Edwin B. Buffe; I do not know him personally; I am already 68 yrs. old; Mr. Rodolfo R. Riño and me are only questioning his official actions/actuations in connection with Criminal Case Nos. 4511 and 4552; to solely seek the law, justice and truth, and in the end, help the Honorable Supreme Court clense [sic] the judiciary to make Judges really honorable, competent, truly impartial, politics free, independent and the epitome of meaningful justice, the pride of us Filipinos. 11 ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx'

[2] All Judge Buffe has to do is to Answer the Complaints of Mr. Rodolfo Riño against him in the Supreme Court. He must not be onion-skin for he is a public official. His private life is not questioned. Atty. Dianco is only doing his best as mandated by law, like reporting serious grievances and irregularities, as Counsel De Officio of Mr. Riño; Client-Lawyer Relationship; and others. 12

xxx xxx xxx

[3] Therefore, Administrative Case No. 7751 against Atty. Cecilio R. Dianco be immediately dismissed. The Complaints against Judge Edwin B. Buffe in the Supreme Court were signed, verified and subscribed by Mr. Rodolfo R. Riño and notarized by Atty. Dianco, a Notary Public, and Counsel De Officio in Criminal Case No. 4511 and private counsel in Criminal Case No. 4552 and hence, Client-Lawyer Relationship under the Canon of Professional Ethics existed. And besides, it is the right and duty of Atty. Dianco under Canons of Professional Ethics to report judicial officers to proper authorities for serious complaints and this should be encouraged and persons making then [sic]should be protected and even rewarded to some extent. Probably, Judge Buffe overlooked these things and he should be reminded once more. 13

Further, the fact that the administrative complaints against Judge Buffe were not signed by Atty. Dianco is of no moment. As this Court held in In re: Wenceslao Laureta:

[R]espondent Laureta as his co-respondent Ilustre's lawyer had control of the proceedings. As stressed by this Court in an early case, as such lawyer, "Whatever steps his client takes should be within his knowledge and responsibility. Indeed, Canon 16 of the Canons of Legal Ethics should be reminded him that '(a) lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client pursuits in such wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their relation.'" (In Re: Contempt Proceedings in Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel,31 SCRA 1, 23) Respondent Laureta manifestly failed to discharge such responsibility. For all intents and purposes, he appears to have encouraged and abetted his client in denigrating the members of the First Division of this Court, by baselessly charging them with rendering an "unjust" resolution with "deliberate bad faith," because of his stubborn insistence on his untenable arguments which had been rejected as without merit by the Court's First Division, whose Resolution was upheld by the Court en banc. Worse, the dissemination in the print and broadcast media in bold captions falsely depicting the Justices as "FAC(ING) GRAFT CHARGES" instead of the baseless rantings of a disgruntled litigant appear to have been timed to place them in a bad light at the height of the Christmas season.

xxx xxx xxx

We likewise find that Atty. Laureta has committed acts unbecoming an officer of the Court for his stance of dangling threats of bringing the matter to the "proper forum" to effect a change of the Court's adverse Resolution; for his lack of respect for and exposing to public ridicule, the two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad faith their integrity and claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgments (Montecillo vs. Gica, 60 SCRA 234 [1974]); for authoring, or at the very least, assisting and/or abetting and/or not preventing the contemptuous statements, conduct, acts and malicious charges of his client, respondent Ilustre, notwithstanding his disclaimer that he had absolutely nothing to do with them, which we find disputed by the facts and circumstances of record as above stated; for totally disregarding the facts and circumstances and legal considerations set forth in this Court's Resolutions of the First Division and en banc, as the Tribunal of last resort; for making it appear that the Justices of this Court and other respondents before the Tanodbayan are charged with "graft and corruption" when the complaint before the Tanodbayan, in essence, is a tirade from a disgruntled litigant and a defeated counsel in a case that has been brought thrice before this Court, and who would readily accept anything but the soundness of the judgments of the Courts concerned, all with the manifest intent to bring the Justices of this Court and of the Court of Appeals into disrepute and to subvert public confidence in the Courts. 14 cSEDTC

When charges are made against judges and lawyers, it is this Court's duty to investigate the veracity of such charges. On the other hand, it behooves this Court to shield these judges and lawyers from unfounded suits which are primarily intended to harass them. 15

Atty. Dianco's propensity to file unfounded suits against Judge Buffe does not escape the Court's attention. For this odious disposition, he violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

 

Canon 10	—	A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Canon 11	—	A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.04	—	A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Canon 12	—	A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

 

The Court has imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year on lawyers who filed unfounded complaints against judges, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code. 16 Considering, however, that this is Atty. Dianco's first offense, We deem it proper to suspend him for six (6) months.

On February 22, 2011, the Court resolved to require the parties to manifest, within ten (10) days from notice, if they are willing to submit this case based on the pleadings. However, only Judge Buffe filed his Compliance dated March 29, 2011, manifesting that he is so willing. The Court issued another Resolution dated September 6, 2011, reiterating its February 22, 2011 Resolution to require the parties to so manifest. Again, only Judge Buffe filed his letter-compliance dated November 14, 2011 and manifested the same. Consequently, on October 15, 2012, the Court resolved to direct Atty. Dianco to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for failure to file his manifestation.

Since Atty. Dianco has not filed his manifestation as of late, this Court dispenses with the filing of such manifestation.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cecilio R. Dianco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this Resolution, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be dealt with more severely.

His filing of a Manifestation per the Court's Resolutions dated February 22, 2011 and September 6, 2011 is DISPENSEDWITH.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts throughout the country, and appended to Atty. Dianco's personal record. SDAaTC

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 5-16.

2. The cases are both entitled Rodolfo Rama Riño v. Judge Edwin B. Buffe, Acting Presiding Judge, MCTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon.

3. "Go home, or else, I will kill you."

4. SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

5.Rollo, pp. 219-227.

6.Id. at 289-302.

7.Id. at 448-459.

8. This case is entitled Atty. Cecilio R. Dianco v. Judge Edwin B. Buffe, Judge, MCTC, San Agustin — Sta. Maria, Romblon. Judge Buffe was charged with gross ignorance of the law and/or procedure, dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression, judicial harassment, judicial persecution, unethical judicial conduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service with moral damages.

9. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1432, September 3, 2004, 437 SCRA 520, 528-529.

10. Cervantes v. Sabio, A.C. No. 7828, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 497, 501.

11. Rollo, p. 292; emphasis supplied.

12. Id. at 299; emphasis supplied.

13. Id. at 300; emphasis supplied.

14. No. L-68635, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 382, 403, 405-406, 421-422. (Emphasis supplied.)

15. Cervantes v. Sabio, supra note 10.

16. See Madrid v. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, September 9, 2014, 734 SCRA 468.