496 Phil. 363
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Acting on the Complaint of Ma. CECILIA M. DY, and pursuant to the provision of the Family Code that children five (5) years and below should remain under the custody of the mother, in relation to the provisions of the Constitution vesting powers unto this Commission and in particular, Section 18, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, the respondent is hereby ordered to give custody of JIANZIL IRISH M. DY to the maternal custody of the aforementioned mother.The Order dated 19 September 2001,[3] reads:
Wherefore, premises considered, pending investigation of the above-entitled case, the custody of JIANZIL IRISH M. DY is hereby awarded to the mother MA. CECILIA M. DY.
SO ORDERED.
City of San Fernando, Pampanga, September 18, 2001.(SGD)ATTY. ROBERTO R. FERRER, SR.Senior Legal Counsel
Before this Commission is the Complaint filed by complainant wife for alleged kidnapping of her child Jianzil Irish M. Dy which happened last August 22, 2001 and the coercive mean (sic) of respondent JOHN BURT DY in the transfer of the complainant’s cash deposit with the Porac Rural Bank.Complainants Yumol and Magcalas, together with their staff, witnessed the incident and were surprised to see the two (2) orders allegedly issued by respondent. Mr. Dy also informed Atty. Yumol that the two (2) orders were already enforced by respondent himself and his co-employees V. Rigor and E. Enolpe, Police Officer Larucom and the Barangay Captain of their place.
Finding the allegations to (sic) sufficiently established, custody of the child was awarded to the Complainant and properly executed with the aid [of] the Sangguniang Barangay of Sta. Cruz, Porac, Pampanga and the elements of the Porac PNP.
Likewise, we find that there had been coercion in the transfer of complainant (sic) deposit in bank, which was already effected by the aforementioned Rural Bank.
NOW, THEREFORE, pending the final determination of this above-entitled case and by virtue of the powers and authority granted this Commission under Sec. 18, Article 13 of the Constitution, the Rural Bank of Porac is hereby ordered to reinstate the account of complainant MA. CECILIA M. DY.
SO ORDERED.
City of San Fernando, Pampanga, September 19, 2001.(SGD)ATTY. ROBERTO R. FERRER, SR.Senior Legal Counsel IV
In reference to the order of Atty. Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., Attorney IV of this Regional Office, the undersigned would like to inform your good office that the Commission’s participation on the matter is limited only to extend legal guidance/assistance considering that the disagreement of spouses John Burt Dy and Ma. Cecilia M. Dy is a family matter. Hence, you are being advised to disregard Atty. Ferrer’s order dated September 19, 2001.On 28 September 2001, Yumol required[5] respondent to explain within seventy-two (72) hours the unauthorized issuance of the said Orders.
Moreover, the said case is not officially docketed as part of Human Rights cases handled by the Commission.
I hope this will clarify any misinterpretation of the Commission’s mandate.
Pleadings | Where Filed | |||||||||||
Motion for Reconsideration in Sp. Proc. No. 01-01 | MTC, Sta. Ana, Candaba, Pampanga.[6] | |||||||||||
Motion for Issuance of Mandatory Injunction | MTC, San Fernando, Pampanga[7] | |||||||||||
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Issuance of Preliminary Injunction | RTC-58, Angeles City[8] | |||||||||||
Petition | MTC, Sta. Ana, Candaba, Pampanga[9] | |||||||||||
Motion for Reconsideration and Urgent Motion for Postponement | RTC-58, Angeles City[10] | |||||||||||
Motion for Reconsideration | - do -[11] | |||||||||||
Motion for Reconsideration On Denial of the Release of Vehicle | - do -[12] | |||||||||||
Addendum to Motion For Re-Investigation | - do -[13] | |||||||||||
Motion to Set Motion For Release of Vehicle | - do -[14] |
Documents | Where Used | ||||||
Reply of Norberto San Angel dated October 16, 2001 | MTC, Branch 1, San Fernando, Pampanga[15] | ||||||
Sworn Statement dated October 15, 2001 of May Paule, et al. | Civil Case No. 8509 filed with the MTC San Fernando, Pampanga [16] | ||||||
Criminal Complaint of Myrna Bulaon | Criminal Case No. 01-1401 MTC of Sta. Ana, Pampanga[17] | ||||||
Reply Affidavit of Myrna Bulaon | - do-[18] | ||||||
Affidavit of Renato P. Canlas | Special Proceeding No. 01-01 at MTC, Sta. Ana, Pampanga[19] |
Date | Time | Case No. | Court | |||||||||||||||||
March 2, 2001 | 9:00 A.M. | 01-01 (Ejectment Case) | MTC/Sta. Ana, Pampanga[20] | |||||||||||||||||
April 23, 2001 | 1:30 P.M. | Crim. Case No. 00-1164 | RTC-58 Angeles City[21] | |||||||||||||||||
March 6, 2001 | 2:15 P.M. | Crim. Case No. 00-1164 | - do -[22] | |||||||||||||||||
August 3, 2001 | 9:00 A.M. | Crim. Case No. 01-1401 | MTC, Sta. Ana. Pampanga[23] | |||||||||||||||||
Sept. 7, 2001 | - do - | - do -[24] | ||||||||||||||||||
October 15, 2001 | 8:30 A.M. | Civil Case No. 17360 | RTC 42, San Frdo., Pamp.[25] | |||||||||||||||||
Nov. 5, 2001 | 2:00 P.M. | Civil Case No. 8509 | MTC Branch 1, San Fernando, Pampanga.[26] | |||||||||||||||||
Nov. 27, 2001 | Civil Case No. 8509 | RTC 58, Angeles City[27] | ||||||||||||||||||
Dec. 6, 2001 | 2:00 P.M. | Civil Case No. 8509 | MTC Br. I, San Fernando, Pampanga.[28] |
(1) Falsification of Public Documents,[29]Still, despite the cases filed against him, respondent continued attending hearings in different courts as demonstrated by the following photostatic copies of the Minutes of the trials of the cases:[32]
(2) Usurpation of Functions,[30] and
(3) Violation of Republic Act No. 6713.[31]
Dates | Time | Court |
October 24, 2002 | 2:00 PM | MTC – Arayat, Pampanga[33] |
November 7, 2002 | 2:00 PM | - do - |
January 17, 2003 | 9:00 AM | MTC – Sta. Ana, Pampanga[34] |
February 10, 2003 | 9:00 AM | MTC – Arayat, Pampanga[35] |
March 10, 2003 | 9:00 AM | - do -[36] |
March 24, 2003 | - do -[37] | |
March 28, 2003 | 9:00 AM | MTC – Sta. Ana, Pampanga[38] |
May 9, 2003 | 9:00 AM | - do -[39] |
May 29, 2003 | 8:30 AM | RTC-54, Macabebe, Pampanga[40] |
June 12, 2003 | 2:00 PM | MTC – Arayat, Pampanga[41] |
June 17, 2003 | MTC-4, San Frdo., Pampanga[42] | |
July 17, 2003 | 8:30 AM | RTC-54, Macabebe, Pampanga[43] |
August 26, 2003 | 9:00 A.M. | MTC-4, San Frdo., Pampanga[44] |
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, there is merit in the complaint and it is hereby recommended that respondent ATTY. ROBERTO R. FERRER, SR. be SUSPENDED for a period of TWO (2) YEARS from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and as a member of the bar.On 30 July 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the penalty imposed: [51]
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that respondent can be held liable for falsification for making it appear that he was at the CHR office by logging in at the DTR when actually he was attending a hearing in some courts, Atty. Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following alleged acts:
Relative to the first ground, respondent contends that CHR lawyers are authorized to engage in private practice by invoking CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133.
- Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government employee;
- Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
- Issuing unauthorized orders; and
- Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for engaging in private practice.
NOW THEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission hereby resolves to adopt the following policy:Crystal clear from the foregoing is the fact that private practice of law by CHR lawyers is not a matter of right. Although the Commission allows CHR lawyers to engage in private practice, a written request and approval thereof, with a duly approved leave of absence for that matter are indispensable. In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any such written request or duly approved leave of absence. No written authority nor approval of the practice and approved leave of absence by the CHR was ever presented by respondent. Thus, he cannot engage in private practice.
Lawyers employed in the Civil Service Commission, upon written request, may be authorized to practice their profession subject to the following conditions:. . .
- It shall not entail any conflict of interest insofar as the functions of the Commission are concerned;
- It shall not be in representation of a client whose cause of action is against the government;
- It shall not involve the use of government funds or property;
- It shall not impair the lawyer’s efficiency in the discharge of his/her regular functions in the office, and absences incurred, if any, shall be covered by duly approved vacation leaves and pass slips;
- It shall be subject to the provisions of RA No. 6713 and such other relevant Civil Service Laws and Rules;
- The lawyers can appear only in courts of law, offices of state prosecutors (Department of Justice), Office of the Ombudsman and quasi-judicial agencies decisions of which are rendered by presidential appointees;
- Authority is for one year subject to renewal after review of the lawyer’s office performance;
- Provided, that, the commission reserves its right to revoke the said authority.
Recognizing that the dearth of lawyers committed to the civil service is due to the “. . . huge disparity in the income of government lawyers as compared to those employed in the private sector,” the Commission on Human Rights is convinced that CHR lawyers may be authorized to engage in the practice of their profession to augment their income so as to encourage them in the government service.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Human Rights adopts the above-cited conditions to authorize, upon written request, to practice their profession. However, it is the Commission (sic) position that said authority should be strictly construed to maintain efficient and effective delivery of Commission programs and services. (Underscoring supplied)
. . . The [1987] Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission [on Human Rights] the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. . .The Commission on Human Rights having merely the power “to investigate,” cannot and should not try and resolve the subject matters involved in the Order dated 18 September 2001, which awarded the custody of the child to her mother, and Order dated 19 September 2001, which ordered the Rural Bank of Porac to reinstate the account of the mother of the child. These matters are undoubtedly and clearly within the judicial and adjudicatory powers of a regular court.
But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.
“Investigate,” commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of “investigate” is “to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically: ‘to search or inquire into: . . . to subject to an official probe . . .: to conduct an official inquiry.’” The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry.
The legal meaning of “investigate” is essentially the same: “to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;” to “inquire; to make an investigation,” “investigation” being in turn described as “(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing . . .”
“Adjudicate,” commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as “to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: x x to pass judgment on: settle judicially: x x act as judge.” And “adjudge” means “to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: x x to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy x x.”
In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means: “To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;” and “adjudge” means: “To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn. x x Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment.”[58]
SEC. 27. Disbarment or Suspension of Attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore.- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. . . .The question now arises as to the penalty to be imposed.