THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5726. April 3, 2017.]
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, DATED JULY 9, 2002, IN CA-G.R. NO. 25213AGAINSTARNULFO PEQUINTO
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 3, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 5726 (Re: Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated July 9, 2002, in CA-G.R. No. 25213 against Arnulfo Pequinto). — The Court resolves to AMEND the title of this case to exclude the appellation of respondent as a lawyer.
Before Us is an administrative complaint against Respondent Atty. Arnulfo Pequinto, arising from the Court of Appeals' 1 (CA) Resolution 2 dated July 9, 2002 in CA-G.R. No. 25213, citing respondent in contempt of court and suspending the latter from the practice of law until further action by this Court.
This case stemmed from a criminal case filed against Alex Gonzales y Hussin, docketed as Criminal Case No. 97-0785, wherein said accused was found guilty of violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6425.
In the said criminal case, respondent stood as counsel for the accused. At the promulgation of the Decision dated March 6, 2001, both accused and respondent failed to appear. Consequently, the trial court ordered the former's arrest and confiscation of his cash bond.
On April 4, 2001, accused, through his counsel, herein respondent, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said decision. On April 26, 2001, the trial court denied the motion and issued an alias arrest order.
On May 10, 2001, accused, again through the respondent, filed a Notice of Appeal. 3 On June 7, 2001, respondent filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Restore Bail Bond and Lift Warrant of Arrest, 4 which was opposed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the ground that the accused was still at large and evading arrest. 5 The trial court, on October 17, 2001, denied the said motion as the accused was still at large.
The case was then elevated to the CA.
On November 21, 2001, respondent, on behalf of his client, filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration 6 claiming that accused had already voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities in Panamao, Sulu on November 12, 2001 upon his advice. Respondent manifested before the appellate court, thus, that accused was already detained at the said police station at that time. Respondent attached to the said motion a Certificate of Detention dated November 15, 2001 supposedly signed by a certain PNP P/Insp. Galib M. Malik, claimed to be the officer-in-charge at the said station.
The CA then issued a Resolution dated November 28, 2001, ordering P/Insp. Malik to confirm respondent's allegation that accused was already in their custody. 7
On December 1, 2001, a letter from P/Insp. Malik addressed to the CA was filed, affirming respondent's allegations that accused had indeed voluntarily surrendered to the Panamao Police and was in fact detained in the said station. 8 Attached to the letter was P/Insp. Malik's Affidavit of Confirmation, allegedly subscribed before PNP Chief Inspector Akmad S. Buklao on December 11, 2001 in Jolo, Sulu.
On February 5, 2002, respondent filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 9 reiterating that accused was already under police custody. CA then issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2002, requiring P/Insp. Malik to immediately cause the transfer of the accused to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City within ten days from notice, and ordering the said officer to notify the CA of his compliance therewith.
On April 5, 2002, CA received a Reply to Resolution from a certain SPO1 Galib S. Malik, claiming to be the Chief of Police of Panamao, Sulu, and denying that accused was in their custody since November 12, 2001, among others.
On April 26, 2002, CA then ordered respondent to show cause within ten days from notice why he should not be cited in contempt for misleading the court and for trifling with the administration of justice. 10 The CA also dismissed the appeal in the said Order. 11
At the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge on May 30, 2002, respondent did not appear despite notice.
Thus, on July 9, 2002, CA issued a Resolution, finding respondent to have employed dilatory tactics in handling the case and willfully misled the court by submitting fabricated certifications and letters concerning the alleged voluntary surrender of accused to the police authorities. The CA cited respondent in contempt, thus:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Arnulfo Pequinto, counsel for accused-appellant, is hereby cited in contempt of court and ordered immediately suspended from the practice of law, and he shall remain so suspended until further action of the Supreme Court. Let a certified copy of this resolution and the pertinent supporting documents be forthwith transmitted to the Supreme Court.
SO ORDERED."12
On November 27, 2002, this Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation, among others. 13
On February 5, 2003, in compliance with the said Resolution, the OBC submitted a Report and Recommendation, 14 recommending the indefinite suspension of respondent from the practice of law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense in the future will be dealt with more severely in law.
On June 23, 2003, this Court resolved to refer the case again to the OBC for re-evaluation. 15
On December 23, 2003, the OBC issued a Report and Recommendation, 16 this time recommending that the case be referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. It was further recommended that pending investigation, the suspension imposed by the CA upon respondent remain effective until final determination of the case. 17
Thus, on February 4, 2004, this Court referred the case to the IBP and ordered respondent's suspension to remain effective until the final determination of the case. 18
Thereafter, upon verification by the OBC, it was discovered that no Arnulfo Pequinto appears in the Roll of Attorneys. 19 The OBC, thus, issued another Report and Recommendation, 20 recommending that respondent be held in contempt of court and fined in the amount of P10,000.00, and that the case be referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) instead of the IBP for investigation and possible criminal prosecution of the respondent.
On September 6, 2004, this Court referred the case to the NBI and ordered the latter to submit a report on its findings. 21
In a letter dated November 13, 2007 addressed to this Court, the NBI recommended that respondent be charged and prosecuted for violation of Article 184 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and that the respondent and accused be charged and prosecuted for violation of Article 172, in relation to Article 171 (3). 22
On January 31, 2008, NBI forwarded its report and recommendation to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. 23
On February 27, 2012, this Court resolved to require the Office of the City Prosecutor to submit a report on the action taken in this case. 24
On February 6, 2013, NBI sent a letter to the OBC informing the said office that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila manifested that it cannot act appropriately on the case because the complaint is not supported by a verified complaint-affidavit. 25 The OBC responded to the said letter by stating that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila has not yet complied with this Court's February 27, 2012 Resolution.
In a letter addressed to Atty. Teresita Aquino-Tuazon, this Court's Deputy Division Clerk of Court, dated February 23, 2014, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila stated that there has been no criminal case filed against the respondent in its office and that they cannot comply with the Court's directive to submit a report for lack of sufficient information and knowledge on the facts of the case. 26
On December 12, 2016, the OBC issued a Report and Recommendation 27 stating that it has finally confirmed that respondent is not a member of the Bar, hence, unauthorized to practice law. The OBC further averred that the respondent's acts are punishable under the penal laws. Thus, said office recommended that the administrative case against respondent be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that the concerned Division of this Court coordinate with the proper government agencies so that the respondent can be held liable for his despicable conduct. 28
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court NOTES the OBC's December 12, 2016 Report and Recommendation. Considering that Arnulfo Pequinto is not a member of the Philippine Bar, Arnulfo Pequinto is ORDERED not to represent himself as a lawyer nor engage in the rendition of acts equivalent to legal services of a lawyer effective immediately under pain of contempt. Accordingly, let the instant administrative case be DISMISSED and considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. The OBC is, however, DIRECTED, to file the appropriate criminal complaint against Arnulfo Pequinto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos and concurred by Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Marina L. Buzon.
2.Rollo at pp. 2-5.
3.Id. at p. 41.
4.Id. at pp. 26-27.
5.Supra, Note 2.
6.Id. at p. 44.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at pp. 47-51.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at p. 15.
14.Id. at pp. 16-20.
15.Id. at p. 21.
16.Id. at pp. 22-26.
17.Id.
18.Id. at pp. 27-28.
19.Id. at pp. 30-34.
20.Id.
21.Id. at p. 84.
22.Id. at pp. 94-97.
23.Id. at pp. 99-108.
24.Id. at pp. 226-228.
25.Id. at pp. 230-231.
26.Id. at p. 238.
27.Id. at pp. 243-246.
28.Id.