THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11917. March 14, 2018.]
EMMANUEL M. LU, complainant,vs. ATTY. MELITA D. GO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11917 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4858] (Emmanuel M. Lu v. Atty. Melita D. Go) — Before the Court is a Letter-Complaint 1 filed by Emmanuel M. Lu (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Melita D. Go (respondent), for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Letter-Complaint
Complainant alleged that respondent was the counsel of her sisters, Marissa Lu Chiong and Cristina Lu Ng, in several cases filed against him and his family. Among the cases filed were two (2) counts of grave oral defamation against him and his wife, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City (MeTC), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 254338 and 254339 where respondent acted as the private prosecutor. In the hearing on September 30, 2015, the prosecution presented the Judicial Affidavit 2 of one of its witnesses, Raquel Doinog (Doinog). It appeared that the judicial affidavit was notarized in Malabon City, but on cross-examination, Doinog admitted that she subscribed under oath the said affidavit before a notary public in Caloocan City. The attestation of respondent in the affidavit indicated that it was subscribed and sworn to in Malabon City. Complainant alleged that respondent committed a serious misrepresentation and dishonesty when she made it appear that the judicial affidavit and her attestation were notarized in Malabon City when it truth, it was signed and executed in Caloocan City.
Moreover, complainant averred that respondent had the "proclivity" of filing administrative charges against judges who rendered rulings adverse to her position particularly Judge Lorenza Bordios (Judge Bordios), Judge Gregorio Velasquez (Judge Velasquez) and Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre (Judge Aguirre); that she was involved in the "apparent railroading" of the eight (8) counts of estafa through falsification and qualified theft filed against her before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City; and that she was rude in dealing with her colleagues and in a pleading filed before the Court of Appeals, was even directly and insolently mentioning and referring to former Senator Rene Saguisag as "R.A.V. Saguisag." 3
The Comment
In her Verified Answer, 4 respondent asserted that the true dispute was between complainant and his siblings who are her clients. She contended that she never made it appear that the judicial affidavit and the attestation were notarized in Malabon City. She clarified that the judicial affidavit of Doinog was subscribed and attested to before Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr. (Atty. Apoya, Jr), a Notary Public whose office was located just beside the Caloocan City Judicial Building, and that the stamp mark "Malabon City" appearing in the said affidavit and attestation was superimposed by Atty. Apoya, Jr. to reflect his address as a notary public. AIDSTE
As to the allegation that she had the tendency to file administrative cases against judges who rendered adverse ruling, she stated that Judge Bordios used to be the presiding judge of the court where the criminal cases for qualified theft against complainant were filed. She admitted that she advised the public prosecutors to file a motion for inhibition against Judge Bordios after the latter commented before her and in the presence of the public prosecutors that "ang dami kasing naglalakad sa kasong ito." Because Judge Bordios refused to inhibit herself from the cases, she was compelled to seek assistance from the Office of the Court Administrator.
With respect to the alleged administrative case against Judge Velasquez, respondent admitted filing the same for and on behalf of her clients. She explained that Judge Velasquez was the presiding judge of the court where the intra-corporate cases involving complainant and her clients were transferred after the previous judge inhibited from the case, and that immediately after the cases were transferred to his sala, Judge Velasquez rendered a consolidated decision in favor of the group of the complainant without conducting a mandatory pre-trial. Respondent asserted that the administrative case filed by her clients was brought before the proper venue and within the bounds of the law.
Respondent contended that neither she nor her clients filed an administrative case against Judge Aguirre. According to her, her clients merely wrote a letter addressed to the executive judge requesting that Judge Aguirre be excluded from the re-raffle of the case which he had previously dismissed.
Respondent also denied her alleged participation in the railroading of the eight (8) counts of estafa through falsification and qualified theft and rudeness to her colleagues. She found the said allegations preposterous and utterly absurd.
The Recommendation of the IBP-CIBD
In its Report and Recommendation 5 dated July 29, 2016, the IBP-Commission on Integrity and Bar Discipline (Commission) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for failure of complainant to fully substantiate his charges with competent and independent evidence. It thoroughly discussed its findings as follows:
FIRST. This office duly notes the evidence of the respondent that the office of the notary public is located at Caloocan City. When the witness Raquel Dionog categorically testified that her Judicial Affidavit was notarized before a notary public in Caloocan City, she remained steadfast to her declaration despite questioning on why the words "Malabon City" appeared to have been superimposed above the computer words, "Caloocan City." There is nothing in the transcript of stenographic notes from which it can be inferred that respondent had attempted to make it appear that the Judicial Affidavit was notarized in Malabon. The Certification issued by the Office of Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City that the notary, Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., is commissioned in Malabon City, ably supports respondent's assertion that it was the notary public who caused the superimposition of the stamp, "Malabon City" over the computer written "Caloocan City." AaCTcI
xxx xxx xxx
Here, the respondent made no pretense that the affidavit was signed in Caloocan City. It was the notary public, having his notarial office in Caloocan who superimposed "Malabon City". Certainly, respondent cannot be faulted for the acts of the notary public nor can one attribute malice for having submitted the Judicial Affidavits which merely served as the direct examination of the affiants. There was absolutely no misrepresentation here, especially considering that the affiant Raquel Dionog categorically declared and clarified that she swore to before the notary public [in] Caloocan City, a fact which is supported by the evidence on record.
SECOND. The matters regarding the conduct of judges which respondent had brought to the attention of the Office of the Court Administrator, do not appear to be whimsical, capricious, nor vindictive. Her letter to Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez regarding the refusal of Judge Lorenza Bordios of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City to inhibit herself from further hearing and deciding the criminal cases was based on respondent's candid and honest perception that judge could not render an impartial judgment. This is especially anchored on the unusual actuations of the judge which respondent painstakingly narrated, particularly the former's remark, "Ang dami kasing naglalakad sa kasong ito."
The complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Gregorio Velasquez of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 35), was filed by respondent's clients, Marissa Lu Chiong and Cristina Lu. Among the acts of the judge brought to the attention of the Office of the Court Administrator was his having rendered a Consolidated Decision in the intra-corporate dispute case without having conducted a pre-trial. The Court of Appeals sustained respondent's argument that the failure to conduct pre-trial was highly irregular and that the issuance of the Consolidated Decision was premature.
Complainant mentions cases filed by respondent against Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe but he failed to submit documentation with respect thereto. Be that as it may, the matters which respondent may have brought to the attention of the Office of the Court Administrator are neither flimsy nor capricious, nor motivated by ill-will or vengeance. These are genuine concerns against judges which respondent as a member of the bar, is certainly entitled if not downright obliged, to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court.
THIRD. The complainant charges respondent with having been "involved in the apparent railroading of the eight counts of estafa through falsification and qualified theft." x x x
The term "railroading" is the act of convicting a person in a hasty manner by means of false charges or insufficient evidence or to force someone into doing something in great haste. Other than his self-serving letter-complaint to the Ombudsman however, complainant has not proven by any independent evidence acts of respondent before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City which proves "railroading". While complainant attached documents, the same in fact rebel against his suppositions. Curiously, the May 4, 2015 Resolution finding probable cause against complainant for Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document and Qualified Theft appears to have been based on a careful and meticulous consideration of the arguments of the parties and the evidence adduced. The corresponding Information in turn emanated from the Resolution and while the same were initially dismissed by the Regional Trial Court for lack of authority to prosecute, subsequent Information correcting the defect were thereafter filed. Respondent correctly pointed out that the complainant had actively participated in all these proceedings, as in fact he succeeded in causing the provisional dismissal of the corresponding criminal cases.
FOURTH. Complainant asserts that respondent is "rude" to her professional colleagues. In his complaint he states —
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing allegation readily betrays the dearth of evidence regarding the rude demeanor of Atty. Go towards her professional colleagues. This is bare, unfounded and unsubstantiated. The reference to former Senator Rene Saguisag as "R.A.V. Saguisag" on the other hand, can by no stretch of the imagination be considered insolent, as "R.A.V. Saguisag" is simply an abbreviation of the former Senator's name which he uses in his pleadings. EcTCAD
xxx xxx xxx. 6
In its Resolution No. XXII-2017-709, 7 the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CIBD, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 8
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Commission.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. 9 If the complainant fails to meet the required standard, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. 10
The well-settled rule is that the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant and in order for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. 11
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Melita D. Go is DISMISSED for lack of merit. HSAcaE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2.Id. at 9-13.
3.Id. at 3-4.
4.Id. at 272-282.
5.Id. at 804-815.
6.Id. at 808-812.
7.Id. at 802-803.
8.Id. at 802.
9.Saquing v. Atty. Mora, 535 Phil. 1, 5 (2006).
10.Jimenez v. Atty. Jimenez, 517 Phil. 68, 73 (2006).
11.Noriega v. Atty. Sison, 210 Phil. 236, 240 (1983).