THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10869. January 27, 2016.]
ANTHONY J. RUSTIA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 27, 2016, which reads as follows:
A.C. No. 10869 (Anthony J. Rustia v. Atty. Janus T. Jarder) — Complainant Anthony J. Rustia filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Janus T. Jarder for alleged "violations of the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism and Procurement of Perjured Affidavits or false testimony, Gross Dishonesty, violation of RA 6713 Section 8 and violation of RA 3019 Section 3 par. A, Malicious Persecution, Oppression, and Harassment."
Acting on the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Binas submitted the following Report and Recommendation:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant RUSTIA is an employee of the SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION (SRA). Respondent JARDER was also an employee of SRA and the President of the employees' union until he retired from service on October 31, 2003. During this time Respondent prepared the necessary documents for the release of his clearance.
On September 2004, a case was file[d] against RUSTIA before the Ombudsman by a certain NEHIMIAS DIVINAGRACIA, JR., which enraged the former. An affidavit of witness COLMENARES, exposed RUSTIA's bad habits and propensities in committing acts of forgeries and falsifications in many instances. This ired RUSTIA.
Thereafter, on October 13, 2004, an Inter Department Memorandum was released by RUSTIA ordering the retrieval of records of certain employees, which includes COLMENARES, DIVINAGRACIA and JARDER.
On November 17, 2004, another memorandum was issued by RUSTIA, this time transferring COLMENARES from the Administrative Division to the General Services Division.
On November 26, 2004, the all-over clearance of JARDER was forwarded to SRA-Bacolod under the supervision of RUSTIA.
On December 2004, JARDER learned from two employees of SRA the derogatory remarks made by RUSTIA against his person and therefore he filed a case against him for libel and grave oral defamation. He attached the affidavit of the witnesses to the case he filed against RUSTIA.
RUSTIA on the other hand, alleged that respondent JARDER maliciously filed a case against him (RUSTIA) on February 22, 2005 for Libel and Grave Oral Defamation, which allegedly took place in December 2004. This case was later dismissed. On the other hand, JARDER alleged that because of the Oral defamation case filed, RUSTIA destroyed all the important documents in his (JARDER) 201 file.
In March 29, 2005, the then SRA Administrator sent a letter to JARDER informing him that his clearance cannot be released for there are still some requirements that have to be submitted.
On May 9, 2005, JARDER filed two (2) cases before the Ombudsman against RUSTIA and two other unit heads of SRA for withdrawing their signatures on Respondent's clearance. The Office of the Ombudsman of Visayas rendered a resolution, stating that the failure of JARDER to file the required documents strengthened the basis why RUSTIA and the two others withdrew their signatures and thereby dismissed the case on September 29, 2005. JARDER filed an affidavit containing falsehood to support his Motion for Reconsideration which according to RUSTIA contained falsehood.
RUSTIA alleged that said affidavit contained the statements that MARIO SY submitted the documents required from JARDER sometime in November and December 2003 already. acEHCD
On May 23, 2006, another counter-affidavit was again filed by JARDER, this time executed by Former Administrative Division OIC CORAZON COLMENARES, which states that she was present at the time MARIO SY, submitted the documents of JARDER. This prompted RUSTIA to file perjury cases against SY and COLMENARES.
The facts as stated now boils down to the filing of this Administrative case against JARDER.
For RUSTIA, Respondent should be dealt with administratively for, "violation [of] the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism and procurement of Perjured Affidavits of False testimony, Gross Dishonesty, violation of R.A. 6713 Section 8 and Violation of RA 3019 par. a, Malicious Persecution, Oppression and Harassment, based on the complaint, evidence and pleadings filed before this honorable Commission." (page 4, of complaint)
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for "violation [of] the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism and procurement of perjured Affidavits of False testimony, Gross Dishonesty, violation of R.A. 6713 Section 8 and Violation of RA 3019 par. A, Malicious Persecution, Oppression and Harassment, based on the complaint, evidence and pleadings filed before this Honorable Commission" based on the facts as presented by the parties.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The answer is in the negative.
The charges of RUSTIA against JARDER did not state the particular violation the [latter] committed under the code of Professional Responsibility.
The allegations of harassment, malicious persecution and oppression were not even clearly established. All were allegations without proof. The case of libel and oral defamation was filed when RUSTIA made derogatory remarks on the person of JARDER. The fact that a libel case was filed does not mean harassment but rather it was to protect one's person and dignity. Records will show that the negative relationship between the parties started when a case was filed against RUSTIA before the Ombudsman in 2004 and since then, those who were witnesses and involved in the case received the wrath of vengeance of RUSTIA. Perjury cases were filed against DIVINAGRACIA, COLMENARES and JARDER. COLMENARES was transferred to a different division and the clearance of JARDER was put on hold, furthermore, this disbarment case was filed against him too.
It's clear that it was RUSTIA who was giving the parties a hard time.
In so far as the alleged violation of RA 3019 Sec. 3 par. A, by the Respondent, which reads, "Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter." The undersigned [C]ommissioner believes that the Commission on Bar Discipline is not the proper forum for the same. The same holds true with the allegation of RUSTIA that JARDER violated R.A. 6713, Sec. 8 in connection with the filing under oath of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. Assuming that the allegations regarding these are true, these are not proper issues for disbarment for the act being complained of, if existing, are related to the holding of a public office and not the practice of law. EcTCAD
The burden of proof required in disbarment cases against a lawyer is convincing and clear preponderant evidence, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence. "In the absence of the required evidence, the presumption of innocence on the part of the lawyer continues and the complaint against him should be dismissed"(Agbayani vs. Agtang, 73 SCRA 283; Mendoza vs. Reyes, 64 SCRA 253; Azor vs. Beltran, 63 SCRA 210).
The undersigned Commissioner is not persuaded to rule in favor of the complainant. There is no cogent reason why the respondent should be disbarred, neither be subject for any admonition or disciplinary action. The filing of this case is definitely baseless, unjustified and malicious and made by the complainant to malign the reputation of the Respondent just to vindicate himself from any grudge against the people who filed or had a hand in filing a case/s against him before the Ombudsman.
"While courts will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, they will on the other hand, protect them from the unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. The success of a lawyer in his profession depends most entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored. Private persons and particularly disgruntled opponents, may not, therefore, be permitted to use the courts as vehicles through which to vent their rancor on members of the Bar" (Santos vs. Dichoso, Adm. Case No. 1825, August 22, 1978).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this instant case against the respondent is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
xxx xxx xxx
In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-602, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation.
Finding the IBP recommendation to be in accord with law, the Court ADOPTS the same. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint against Atty. Janus T. Jarder for lack of merit.
Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court