THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11727. September 6, 2017.]
ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, complainant,vs. ATTY. GINA C. GARCIA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 6, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11727 (Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco vs. Atty. Gina C. Garcia). — For resolution by the Court is a complaint filed by complainant Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco (Pefianco) against respondent Atty. Gina C. Garcia (Garcia) for violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and of the Lawyer's Oath.
The factual findings are summarized in the Report and Recommendation 1 of Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP), viz.: caITAC
Complainant represents a certain Nelly A. Bautista (Bautista) in a petition before the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. SP No. 07353). The Court of Appeals issued a resolution that dismissed the petition before it. Thus, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration to the resolution of dismissal.
Respondent, as counsel of the adverse party in the case before the Court of Appeals, filed a comment and opposition to the motion for reconsideration. Among the matters alleged in the comment and opposition are that complainant'[s] services had already been terminated by [Bautista] and that complainant had been suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon notice of the Resolution in A.C. No. 6116 that was rendered on August 12, 2012.
On account of these allegations, Pefianco instituted the present administrative complaint against respondent. Complainant asserts that the allegations in respondent's comment and opposition are discourteous, unfair and lack candor, an act of harassing tactic, and constitute falsehood. 2
In her Answer, Garcia denies that she acted without courtesy, fairness and candor to a fellow lawyer. She claims that she never employed harassing tactics against Pefianco. Further, she asserts that when she called the trial court's attention to Pefianco's suspension from the practice of law, she had the intention not only of protecting her client but also of upholding the dignity and authority of the court. It is her fear that the proceeding conducted on the case be invalidated on account of Pefianco's active participation therein despite the suspension issued on him by the Supreme Court. 3
The Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Din found that Pefianco failed to prove that Garcia violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath. None of the circumstances he presented warrant a finding that she was motivated by ill-will in reporting complainant's one (1) year suspension from the practice of law, and the absence of showing that said suspension has been lifted. 4
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XXII-2016-480 dated August 27, 2016, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 5
Issue
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Garcia should be administratively sanctioned for violating Canon 8 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath.
Ruling of the Court
After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds Resolution No. XXII-2016-480 in accord with the pertinent rules and jurisprudence on bar discipline.
Canon 8 of the CPR provides that "a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." It states that lawyers are duty bound to act honorably towards each other and conduct themselves without reproach at all times. 6 All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession; hence, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. 7
On the basis of the foregoing standards, the Court is not convinced that Garcia acted unfairly and rudely against Pefianco when she questioned the latter's standing to appear before the CA. Garcia, as a lawyer, is also an officer of the court. Being such, she is obliged to observe Canon 10 of the CPR, to wit:
Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Consequently, Garcia, as an officer of the court, has a duty to disclose Pefianco's suspension, lest she will be in breach of the duty imposed upon her by the CPR. Had she concealed such information, the administration of justice in the cases handled by Pefianco would be prejudiced, as his unauthorized participation therein would invalidate the proceedings. Further, allowing Pefianco to practice law despite his suspension would amount to consenting to a falsehood, an act that the Lawyer's Oath also proscribes.
It is also well-settled that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved, and, as an officer of the court, that he has performed his duty in accordance with his oath. 8
The Court has consistently held that clear preponderance of evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. 9 Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary evidence. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to show that the Court should exercise its disciplinary power towards a lawyer. 10
Here, Pefianco failed to prove that Garcia displayed any misconduct in the performance of her duties both as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. She was merely compelled to tell the truth, as amply demonstrated by the certification issued by the Office of the Bar Confidant, which he did not even refute. ICHDca
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Gina C. Garcia is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 199-204.
2.Id. at 200-201.
3.Id. at 18-22.
4.Id. at 175.
5.Id. at 197.
6.De Ere v. Atty. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 12, 1999, 320 SCRA 617.
7.Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212.
8.In re: Atty. De Guzman, A.C. No. 838, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 139.
9.Aba, et al.vs. De Guzman, A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361.
10. Ylayavs. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452.