The Supreme Court (SC) has cautioned persons named in criminal complaints in the filing of disbarment charges against government lawyers like city or provincial prosecutors who find evidence to charge them in court after preliminary investigation.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC assured that the High Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) “cannot be passive instruments to the misuse of disciplinary proceedings as a reliable and predictable means to routinely vex and punish public servants for doing their jobs.”
With its declaration, the SC dismissed for lack of merit the disbarment complaint filed in 2016 against Valenzuela City Associate City Prosecutor Randy C. Caingal, Deputy City Prosecutor Honesto D. Noche, and City Prosecutor Lemuel B. Nobleza.
Deputy City Prosecutor Noche died in August 2017 during the pendency of the disbarment complaint. The case against him had been dismissed since then.
Case records show that in on May 24, 2016, the Valenzuela City’s Office of City Prosecutor (OCP) filed criminal charges before the city’s regional trial court (RTC), sitting as a family court, against Clarita Mendoza for unjust vexation and Clarisse Mendoza for violation of Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.
The resolution charging the Mendozas in court was issued by Caingal, the late Noche, and Nobleza.
On June 13, 2016, the Mendozas filed a motion for reconsideration and a disbarment complaint before the SC’s Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) against the three prosecutors who inhibited themselves from resolving the motion and referred the motion to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ noted: “We find the motion bereft of any merit in as much as (complainants) resorted to an irrelevant collateral attack … without however having been able to sufficiently establish and clearly point out that they have committed grave reversible error in resolving the instant case. We agree with the findings of the City Prosecutor that there exists probable cause to warrant (complainants') indictment for violation of the crimes charged.”
On Sept. 14, 2016, the SC referred the disbarment charge against the prosecutors to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In their answer to the disbarment complaint, the prosecutors told the IBP that they correctly filed the cases before the RTC as a family court after preliminary investigation because the victims were minors; that there were pieces of evidence to prove that the minor-victims had suffered psychological abuse, cruelty, and emotional maltreatment; and that the P80,000 bail for violation of RA 7610 is based on the DOJ’s 2000 Bail Bond Guide.
On Oct. 30, 2019, the IBP investigating commissioner issued a report and recommendation to dismiss the disbarment complaint with a ruling that “the respondents (prosecutors) fully and properly performed the duties and functions expected of them as public prosecutors….”
On June 13, 2020, the IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation which is “fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules.”
The IBP’s recommendation was submitted to the SC for resolution.
In adopting the IBP’s recommendation and dismissing the disbarment complaint, the SC said: “After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court adopts the IBP' s findings of fact and recommendation to dismiss the disbarment case against respondents (prosecutors).”
The SC also said:
“Here, the disbarment complaint contains allegations of unethical conduct, namely ‘Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure’ and ‘Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.’
“However, a closer assessment of the allegations will readily reveal that the intention is really to question the correctness of respondents' official actions while using certain phrases hinting at unethical conduct to successfully pass off as an ostensible disbarment complaint.
“From the allegations above, in addition to the fact that complainants had concurrently assailed -- and failed to overturn -- the May 24, 2016 Resolution of respondents, it is clear that this is another instance of effective forum shopping designed to harass government lawyers.
“Unfortunately, since the proceedings happened before the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA, known as Lawyers Code) became effective and the Investigating Commissioners were not yet explicitly empowered to recommend the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the goal of complainants in employing their devious strategy of effective forum shopping was already accomplished: they were able to successfully weaponize and exploit the rules to vex and punish respondent-government lawyers for an outcome unfavorable to complainants resulting from respondents' performance of official duties.
“Consequently, respondents here were forced to take their full focus out of their regular tasks and day-to-day responsibilities to justify and defend the correctness of their official actions in an improper forum, i.e., in the context of disbarment proceedings.
“Surely, the old regime of conducting full-blown inquisitions against government lawyers every single time a complainant hurdles the very low bar of hinting or barely suggesting respondents' unethical conduct cannot be countenanced, especially now that the CPRA is already replete with measures ensuring that the Court can ably root out those truly not fit to practice the profession.
“It is worth emphasizing that every time clearly-sham disbarment complaints against government lawyers are dignified by going through all the steps of the disciplinary proceedings-perhaps with the misguided assurance that justice will be served anyway since the cases will be dismissed on the merits eventually-everyone's time and resources (especially the government's) will be squandered, except for complainants,' because they do not even have to show up during the disciplinary proceedings or file pleadings other than the verified complaint to ensure the commencement and continuation of the disciplinary process against government lawyers.
“Put simply, complainants are not adversely affected if they lose interest or merely decide to abandon participation in the case, knowing that the Court or the IBP will proceed with the witch-hunt against the government lawyers anyway.
“With the issuance of the CPRA, the Court stands by its constitutional mandate ‘to regulate the admission to, and the practice of law, which necessarily includes the authority to discipline, suspend, or even disbar misbehaving members of the legal profession, whenever proper and called for.’
“Even as it continues to exercise this duty, the Court is keenly aware that its disciplinary processes may be exploited, abused, and weaponized by unsavory characters. This is precisely why the Court has introduced measures to guard against such misuse in the CPRA, including the directive to ensure proper jurisdiction in cases involving government lawyers.
“Accordingly, the disbarment complaint against respondents Atty. Lemuel B. Nobleza, Atty. Honesto D. Noche, and Atty. Randy C. Caingal is dismissed for lack of merit. So ordered.”