SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8704. June 10, 2019.]
ROLANDO B. PIOCOS, complainant, vs.ATTY. RAYMUNDO JULIO A. OLAGUER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8704 — ROLANDO B. PIOCOS, complainant, versus ATTY. RAYMUNDO JULIO A. OLAGUER, respondent.
This resolves the disbarment complaint 1 filed on August 17, 2010 by Rolando B. Piocos (Piocos) against Atty. Raymundo Julio A. Olaguer (Atty. Olaguer) for grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). At the time of the filing of the complaint, Piocos was a member of the Philippine Navy while Atty. Olaguer occupied the position of Director at the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Piocos is the private complainant in the two criminal cases filed against Atty. Olaguer for: 1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property; and 2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries; both filed with the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Zambales. 2 These cases stemmed from a vehicular collision involving them. Below are the findings of the Investigating Provincial Prosecutor on the matter:
It appears that on March 28, 2009 at about 1:10 in the afternoon at the cross road MS Evangelista St. and Pundakit road in Brgy. Santiago, San Antonio, Zambales, complainant [Piocos] was driving a KIA Besta Van with plate no. WNF 693 when he was suddenly hit by a Nis[s]an Sentra with plate no. XTH 508 driven by respondent [Olaguer] coming from the Pundakit Road. As a result, [Piocos] lost control of the vehicle thereby crushing the nearby fence. He sustained serious physical injuries. His KIA Besta Van also incurred damages in the amount of P84,900.00.
Despite subpoena sent to [Olaguer], he did not appear during the scheduled preliminary investigation nor file any controverting evidence. 3 (Underscoring supplied)
On November 3, 2009 or after the two cases were already filed in court, Atty. Olaguer filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) before the Provincial Prosecutor, which was merely noted in view of the cases having already been filed in court. 4
On December 4, 2009, Atty. Olaguer filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative case against Piocos for grave misconduct and neglect in the performance of duty. 5
On December 7, 2009, Atty. Olaguer also filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence against Piocos before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iba, Zambales involving the same vehicular collision which was subject of the two criminal cases against the former. 6
Atty. Olaguer filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Redetermination of Probable Cause and to Hold Warrant of Arrest in Abeyance and Motion to Suspend Proceedings, with respect to the criminal cases filed against him. Said motion was denied on May 18, 2010. 7 He also filed an MR, which was likewise denied.
Piocos claimed that the administrative and criminal complaints filed against him by Atty. Olaguer were intended to harass him and delay the disposition of the criminal cases against the latter. Likewise, he alleged that Atty. Olaguer's filing of the Motion to Suspend Proceedings was also intended to delay the resolution of the criminal cases. Thus, Piocos averred that Atty. Olaguer violated Canons 1 and 12 of the CPR. 8
In his Comment, 9 Atty. Olaguer claimed that he merely exercised his rights under the law. According to him, while he received a copy of the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor, he never received a subpoena for him to appear or submit controverting evidence at the hearing. This was the reason he filed an MR on November 3, 2009. 10 He also claims that he filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on the existence of a prejudicial question, on account of the pending complaints filed by him against Piocos. 11 He then went on to discuss the details of the vehicular collision to explain that it was Piocos, not him, who was responsible. 12
Atty. Olaguer argued that he could not be held administratively liable because he was merely exercising his rights as a party-litigant and he merely defended himself by means that are allowed under the Rules of Court. 13 He insisted that the cases he filed against Piocos were not meant to delay the proceedings against him — in fact, he submitted himself for arraignment and he participated in the mediation proceedings. 14
Moreover, in his Position Paper, 15 Atty. Olaguer claimed that the instant disbarment complaint was filed to harass him. He cited the demands made by Piocos during the mediation proceedings which, according to him, amounted to extortion.
In his Position Paper, 16 Piocos reiterated the arguments he raised in his complaint. Additionally, Piocos attached the Decision 17 of the Ombudsman which dismissed the administrative charges filed by Atty. Olaguer against him. The Ombudsman made the following pronouncements:
x x x Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that he was performing his duties at the time of the collision, there is no basis to hold respondent Piocos administratively liable for either misconduct or neglect of duty.
At any rate, we are not convinced that there is sufficient basis to hold that it was respondent Piocos' negligence that caused the vehicular collision. 18 (Underscoring supplied)
Piocos also attached the letter 19 from the Naval Education and Training Command of the Philippine Navy which recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against him, to wit:
4. In view of the foregoing, [it is] recommend[ed] that the complaint of Atty. Raymundo Julio A. Olaguer against PO2 Rolando B. Piocos PN for alleged Grave Misconduct and Neglect in the Performance of Duty be dismissed due to lack of evidence and witnesses to support the accusations. x x x [T]he sole intention of the complainant is just to tarnish and malign the credibility of [Piocos]. Further, [it is] recommend[ed] that [Piocos] be [exonerated] from any administrative liability. Thereafter, the case [should] be considered dropped and closed. 20 (Underscoring supplied)
On June 26, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) submitted its Report and Recommendation 21 recommending Atty. Olaguer's suspension from the practice of law for six months for violating Canon 10, Rule 10.3 and Canon 12, Rule 12.02 of the CPR.
The CBD noted that the allegations in the criminal and administrative complaints filed by Atty. Olaguer against Piocos involved the same matter covered by the criminal cases against the former. As regards the administrative case, there was no showing that the road mishap had any relation to Piocos' performance of duty as a navy officer. The CBD concluded that Atty. Olaguer's filing of criminal and administrative complaints against Piocos was only for the purpose of harassment and a counter charge in order for him to get a leverage in the criminal cases filed against him by Piocos. 22
Lastly, the CBD did not delve into the truthfulness of Atty. Olaguer's allegations regarding Piocos' demands during the mediation — instead, it reminded Atty. Olaguer that the admissions or conversations in the mediation proceeding before the Philippine Mediation Center are considered privileged and the parties thereto are strictly enjoined not to divulge or use them in any proceeding. 23
In a Resolution 24 dated August 8, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the CBD. Atty. Olaguer moved for reconsideration, which was denied. 25
In view of the foregoing, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP. Undoubtedly, Atty. Olaguer violated the following rules under the CPR:
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
RULE 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, the Court quotes with approval the following pronouncements by the IBP:
x x x The respondent obviously violated [Canon 10, Rule 10.03 and Canon 12, Rule 12.02] of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he must answer under his oath as a lawyer. His claim of "wanting to be heard" falls flat in light of his insistence to be heard only in the forum he wanted, that is, before the Provincial Prosecutor's Office. More than his claim for a fair share of due process, it is clear that he wanted to harass complainant Piocos. This conduct the Code cannot tolerate. 26 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Raymundo Julio A. Olaguer is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Resolution. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Further, he is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation on the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect, copy furnished to all court and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Olaguer as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-11.
2.Id. at 605.
3.Id. at 2-3.
4.Id. at 605.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 10-11.
9.Id. at 232-243, filed on November 29, 2011.
10.Id. at 233-234.
11.Id. at 235.
12.Id. at 236-238.
13.Id. at 236.
14.Id. at 242.
15.Id. at 279-297. VERIFIED POSITION PAPER FOR RESPONDENT.
16.Id. at 309-319.
17.Id. at 543-551. OMB-P-A-10-0048-A, titled "Raymundo Julio Olaguer v. Rolando Piocos."
18.Id. at 548.
19.Id. at 552.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 605-611.
22.Id. at 608-610.
23.Id. at 611.
24.Id. at 604.
25.Id. at 654. Resolution dated June 6, 2015.
26.Id. at 664.