SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7071. September 7, 2016.]
[Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1503]
HOWARD KO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTHONY D. BENGZON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7071 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1503]: HOWARD KO v. ATTY. ANTHONY D. BENGZON
This resolves a Petition for Review 1 filed by complainant Howard Ko under Rule 56 2 of the Rules of Court. Complainant assails the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors to dismiss the disbarment case against respondent Atty. Anthony D. Bengzon. 3
On April 14, 2005, on behalf of his client, respondent filed a complaint-affidavit before the Department of Justice against Bright Future Technologies, Inc. (Bright Future). 4 Respondent impleaded complainant and other corporate officers of Bright Future for piracy and infringement of intellectual property rights. 5 He based the complaint on the information provided by the Optical Media Board and the International Federation of Phonograph Industries. 6 Documents and video excerpts taken during the implementation of a search warrant against Bright Future allegedly showed complainant's involvement as Managing Director of Bright Future. 7
On June 15, 2005, complainant filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines a complaint 8 for disbarment against respondent. He accused respondent of bad faith in prosecuting a false charge against him. 9
The parties dispensed with the mandatory conference and agreed to submit position papers without conducting further hearings. 10
On September 15, 2005, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Commissioner Villanueva-Maala) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that the disbarment case lacked merit as respondent had sufficient reasons to implead complainant in the criminal case. 11 According to Commissioner Villanueva-Maala:
Respondent charged complainant because he had sufficient reason to believe that complainant is a responsible officer of, and has a direct financial interest in, B[right] F[uture] T[echnologies,] I[nc]. As such, complainant is criminally liable for the offense charged against him and his co-respondents. To readily conclude that the charges against complainant are groundless or false necessarily preempts the resolution of the preliminary investigation proceedings at the D[epartment] [of] J[ustice]. If indeed complainant should not be held liable for the offense charged against him . . . the same is already a matter of defense which only the investigating prosecutor could appreciate at this juncture. At the very least, complainant should raise that defense at the proper forum and wait for the outcome of the criminal case filed against him. 12
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala likewise upheld the legal presumption that an attorney is innocent of the charges filed against him or her in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to warrant his or her administrative sanction. 13 "As it is, respondent could not be charged [with] malicious prosecution because the case, which is the basis of this administrative complaint, is still pending investigation before the Department of Justice." 14
On May 11, 2006, the Department of Justice recommended the filing of an information against complainant for violation of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code. 15
On May 24, 2006, complainant filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari16 assailing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' recommendation to dismiss the disbarment case. He claims that there was no basis to consider him a person of interest in the criminal case. 17
In his Comment 18 dated February 1, 2007, respondent argues that complainant's allegation that he is not an officer of Bright Future and should not be liable is a defense that should be raised in the proper forum. 19 Respondent adds that he acted in good faith 20 in filing the complaint-affidavit against complainant and relying on the information from the Optical Media Board and the International Federation of Phonograph Industries. 21 Finally, respondent states that the Department of Justice Resolution dated May 11, 2006, which recommended the filing of an information against complainant, "has rendered [the] complaint for disbarment moot and academic." 22 HSAcaE
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review. This Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation 23 dated September 15, 2005, which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors likewise adopted and approved in the Notice of Resolution No. XVII-2005-183 24 dated December 17, 2005. The Complaint against respondent Atty. Anthony D. Bengzon is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 286-309.
2. RULES OF COURT, Rule 56, sec. 3 provides:
SEC. 3. Mode of appeal. — An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
3. Rollo, pp. 300-306.
4. Id. at 288.
5. Id. at 288-289.
6. Id. at 50, Answer.
7. Id. at 50-51.
8. Id. at 1-8.
9. Id. at 5-6.
10. Id. at 154.
11. Id. at 239-244, Report and Recommendation.
12. Id. at 243.
13. Id. at 244.
14. Id. at 244.
15. Id. at 496, Comment.
16. Id. at 286-309.
17. Id. at 300-303.
18. Id. at 490-509.
19. Id. at 490-500.
20. Id. at 506.
21. Id. at 495.
22. Id. at 500.
23. Id. at 239-244.
24. Id. at 246-247.