EN BANC
[A.C. No. 7345. April 18, 2017.]
ATTY. GLORIA LASTIMOSA-DALAWAMPU, petitioner,vs. CONGRESSMAN ANTONIO V. CUENCO AND CONGRESSMAN ROQUE R. ABLAN, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 18, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7345 — ATTY. GLORIA LASTIMOSA-DALAWAMPU, Petitioner, v. CONGRESSMAN ANTONIO V. CUENCO AND CONGRESSMAN ROQUE R. ABLAN, JR., Respondents.
We resolve this disbarment complaint brought against former members of the House of Representatives, namely: Hon. Roque R. Ablan, Jr. and Hon. Antonio V. Cuenco, in connection with the discharge of their duties as the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, respectively, of the Committee on Dangerous Drugs of the House of Representatives.
On September 24, 2004, at around 5:00 p.m., a raid by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of a suspected shabu laboratory in Mandaue City led to the arrest of 11 personalities whom the local media collectively referred to as the "shabu 11." 1 Said individuals were consequently charged in the Regional Trial Court in Mandaue City (RTC) under an information for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002). The case was raffled to Judge Marilyn L. Yap of the RTC (Branch 28). 2
On September 30, 2004, the respondents Ablan and Cuenco in their respective official capacities as the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Committee on Dangerous Drugs of the House of Representatives went to the Mandaue City Jail to conduct an investigation of the "shabu 11." Later in the afternoon, Ablan and PDEA Regional Director Amado E. Marquez, Jr. filed a joint affidavit in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaue City stating that a certain Calvin de Jesus Tan (a.k.a. Lin Chui Wi/Joey Lin) had financed the establishment and operations of the suspected shabu laboratory, and thus requested that the information against the "shabu 11" be amended to include Tan. 3 An amended information that included Tan as an accused, was later filed in the RTC. Consequently, Judge Yap issued an order for the arrest of Tan. Upon motion of the Prosecution, Judge Yap directed the cancellation of Tan's passport. 4
The complainant acted as the counsel of Tan. She alleged that respondents Ablan and Cuenco had abused their prerogatives as members of Congress by conspiring with Judge Yap in rigging the case against her client; that they had violated the law and procedure in the investigation of criminal cases; that they had disregarded the constitutional rights of Tan as an accused whom they had interviewed in jail without the benefit of counsel; that as legislators, they had ignored the principle of separation of powers; that respondent Cuenco had maneuvered for the application of co-accused Hung Chin Chang to become a state witness despite his being the most guilty of all the accused; that respondent Cuenco had exerted effort to prevent Tan from availing himself of effective legal assistance by giving public statements that cast doubt on her integrity as Tan's counsel. 5 CAIHTE
We required the respondents to comment on the complaint, 6 but only respondent Cuenco complied.
Respondent Cuenco averred that as members of the Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs, his and co-respondent Ablan's foremost function was to monitor and ensure the proper implementation of R.A. No. 9165; that they were not guilty of gross ignorance of the law because they had neither been the prosecutors nor the judge who had issued the resolution or order supposedly contrary to law; that he had not been a quasi-judicial officer susceptible of committing the supposed ignorance of law; that he could not have violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the rule applied only to a lawyer actively involved in a pending case; that the rule did not apply to a detached opinion elicited by a reporter during an interview; and that he could not be held liable for violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct because he was not a member of the Judiciary. 7
Should the respondents be disciplined for their conduct in relation to the discharge of their duties as members of the Committee on Dangerous Drugs of the House of Representatives?
We dismiss the disciplinary complaint.
The allegations of the complainant evidently pertained to the functions of the respondents as the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Committee on Dangerous Drugs of the House of Representatives. In line with the principle of separation of powers, we cannot overstep our boundaries in order to inquire into the conduct of the respondents as members of Congress. Section 16 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive authority to discipline its members for disorderly behavior. 8 Evidently, the Court is not the appropriate forum to probe the conduct of the respondents as legislators.
At any rate, we cannot find any transgressions committed by the respondents of their Lawyer's Oath and the ethical norms as members of the Legal Profession. The complainant was well aware that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof was upon her as the complainant; and that the Court can exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. 9
With the Complainant failing in her burden to prove the misconduct allegedly committed by the respondents, the dismissal of the complaint for patent lack of merit should follow conformably with Section 2, Rule 139 10 of the Rules of Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against the respondents for being unmeritorious; and declares this case CLOSED and TERMINATED." (adv1)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Namely: Joseph Yu, Hung Chin Chang, Siew Kin Weng, Liew Kam Song, Lin Li Ku, Bao Xiafu Wu Tiau Yi, Tao Fei, Liu Bo, Allan Yap Garcia and Joseph Lopez.
2.Rollo, p. 4.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 13.
5.Id. at 20-23.
6.Id. at 73, (see Resolution dated November 14, 2006).
7.Id. at 77-85.
8. Section 16 (3). Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
9.Munar v. Bautista, A.C. No. 7424, February 8, 2017, citing Arma v. Montevilla, A.C. No. 4829, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 1, 8.
10. Sec. 2.Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to merit action, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within ten (10) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Supreme court that the complaint is not meritorious, the same shall be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied)