ZALAMEDA, J.:
Then, in order to do away with the ostensible confusion, and the unethical practice of effective forum shopping, taking into account the suggestions of Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe during the deliberations on this case, the Court hereby lays the following rules in the filing and handling of complaints against government lawyers, to serve as guidelines for both the bench and the bar:Through the abovequoted guidelines, Guevarra-Castil unequivocally abandoned the doctrine enunciated in Spouses Buffe v. Gonzales[11] and other earlier decisions which stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to discipline, as member of the Bar, government lawyers who committed acts or omissions involving their official duties.[12]
1. All complaints against and which seek to discipline government lawyers in their respective capacities as members of the Bar must be filed directly before this Court. Conversely, complaints which do not seek to discipline them as members of the Bar shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and referred to the Ombudsman or concerned government agency for appropriate action.
2. In connection with paragraph 1, upon filing, the Court must determine whether the concerned agency, the Ombudsman, or the Court, has jurisdiction over the complaint against the government lawyer. In making such determination, the following must be considered: did the allegations of malfeasance touch upon the errant lawyer's continuing obligations under the CPR and/or the Lawyer's Oath? To put it more simply, the primordial question to be asked in making this determination is this: do the allegations in the complaint, assuming them to be true, make the lawyer unfit to practice the profession?2a. If the question in paragraph 2 yields a positive answer, the case properly lies before the Court, which shall retain jurisdiction. This is so because again, the power to regulate the practice of law, and discipline members of the bar, belongs to Us. Necessarily, proceedings to be had before this Court should concern these and only these matters. This rule shall hold, even if the complaint also contains allegations of administrative and/or civil service rules infractions. In such situation however; the Court shall limit its ruling only to the matter of the respondent's fitness as a lawyer.3. If multiple complaints have been filed, the process shall be the same.
2b. On the other hand, if the question in paragraph 2 yields a negative answer, the Court, for lack of jurisdiction, shall dismiss the case and refer the same to the appropriate government office or the Ombudsman.
In the event that paragraph 2b shall apply, and results in a situation where one or more complaint/s have been dismissed and referred to the appropriate government office or the Ombudsman, and one or more complaint/s have been retained by this Court, the cases shall proceed independently from one another.[10]
SECTION 1. Transitory provision. — The CPRA shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work in justice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. (n)However, the Guevarra-Castil guidelines and the new CPRA are not inconsistent with each other. In fact, the new CPRA's provision on filing of complaints against government lawyers appears to be based on the Guevarra-Castil guidelines. Thus, Canon VI, Sections 2 and 6, provide:
SECTION 2. Repealing clause. — The Code of Professional Responsibility of 1988, Sections 20 to 37 of Rule 138, and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court are repealed.
The lawyer's oath as found in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is amended and superseded.
Any resolution, circular, bar matter, or administrative order issued by or principles established in the decisions of the Supreme Court inconsistent with the CPRA is deemed, modified or repealed. (Emphasis supplied.)
SECTION 2. How instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of lawyers may be commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative, or upon the filing of a verified complaint by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), or by any person, before the Supreme Court or the IBP. However, a verified complaint against a government lawyer which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar shall only be filed in the Supreme Court. x x xPerhaps the only minor difference between the two involves the referral to IBP of a complaint involving a government lawyer. The Guevarra-Castil guidelines are silent on this matter. Meanwhile, the new CPRA seems to impose upon the investigating commissioner of the IBP the duty to determine which among the Court, the Ombudsman, or the concerned agency has jurisdiction over the complaint. We note, nevertheless, that under Canon VI, Section 2, referral to the IBP is optional. Thus:
x x x
SECTION 6. Complaint against a government lawyer. — When a complaint is filed against a government lawyer, the Investigating Commissioner shall determine, within five days from assignment by raffle, whether the concerned agency, the Ombudsman, or the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. If the allegations in the complaint touch upon the lawyer's continuing obligations under the CPRA or if the allegations, assuming them to be true, make the lawyer unfit to practice the profession, then the Investigating Commissioner shall proceed with the case. Otherwise, the Investigating Commissioner shall recommend that the complaint he dismissed. (n)[15]
SECTION 2. How instituted. — x x xFurther, Canon VI, Section 30 provides:
x x x
A verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court may be referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation, except when filed directly by the IBP, in which case, the verified complaint shall be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant or such fact-finding body as may be designated. (n)
SECTION 30. Proceedings initiated before the Supreme Court. — In proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court, or proceedings commenced by complaint filed with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation, report and recommendation to the Office of the Bar Confidant, or the IBP, or other fact-finding body that is designated or created by the Supreme Court for such purpose.In this regard, the Court would exercise its option to not refer the case to the IBP. First, referral to the IBP would only prolong the controversy, which could be prevented considering that the Court is very willing to meticulously apply here, step-by-step, the Guevarra-Castil guidelines, insofar as they are consistent with the new CPRA. And second, and as will be discussed later, the acts or omissions complained of constitute a violation of both the then CPR as well as the new CPRA, and the DOJ's own rules of conduct.
Cases referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant, or other fact-finding body, or the IBP shall proceed in the same manner provided in Sections 5 to 29 of this Canon.
In any event, the report and recommendation on the investigation shall be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court, which shall take such necessary action on the report and recommendation as may be warranted. (R140, sec. 12; R139-B, sec. 13)
Step 1: Determine allegations in the complaint constituting the acts or omissions complained of.After an administrative complaint against a government lawyer is lodged, either before the Court, in cases where the complaint seeks to discipline a government lawyer as a member of the Bar,[16] or before the IBP,[17] the Guevarra-Castil guidelines provide that the allegations of the complaint, specifically those constituting the acts or omission of the government lawyer complained of, must be determined. As applied in this case, and stripped of the non-essentials, Atty. Francisco's Complaint alleged:
8. To the dismay and consternation of complainant, however, respondent Lagman dismissed the perjury complaint on a ruling that there can be no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood "on the part of Flora Mari et al., because the false statement is a mere proposal for stipulation offered to herein complainant and it's up to him to accept or reject such facts."The portions excluded from the quotation above pertain only to Atty. Francisco's own interpretation of the relevant laws and jurisprudence and his litany of why under said laws and jurisprudence, his complaint for perjury should not have been dismissed.
Said ruling of respondent Lagman is characterized by whim, caprice and despotism for the following reasons: x x x
x x x
The reason cited by respondent Lagman for her dismissal of the perjury complaint i.e. (sic) that the false statement are mere proposals for stipulation offered to herein complainant, actually satisfies the third element of perjury i.e. (sic) that the false statements contain a deliberate assertion of falsehood.
x x x
Yet, respondent Lagman ruled that said statement is not "willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood", as would warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
The false statement, therefore, is not a mere proposal as what respondent Lagman characterized it. It is an open invitation for complainant and the IBP to accept the statement as true. Respondent Lagman's reason for dismissing the complaint actually is one of the elements of the existence of perjury... the falsehood was deliberate. Ignorance of the law is manifest.[18]
Step 2: Assume that these allegations are true, and determine whether they constitute 1) a violation of the new CPRA or 2) make the lawyer unfit to practice the profession.This guideline has been adopted and modified under the new CPRA, which now provides that assuming the allegations in the complaint are true, the investigating commissioner shall determine whether the same actually touch upon the lawyer's continuing obligations under the new CPRA or make the lawyer unfit to practice the profession.[19] By supplication, the same may also be applied by the Court with regard to administrative complaints against government lawyers directly filed before It in determining whether it indeed has jurisdiction over them.
It is a well-settled rule that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. The issue rather is: admitting them to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint? Stated otherwise, the sufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground. No extraneous matter may be considered nor facts not alleged, which would require evidence and therefore must be raised as defenses and await the trial. In other words, to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint, and no others should be considered.[21] (Emphases supplied.)The abovequoted ruling also emphasizes that during this step, the investigating commissioner, or the Court for that matter, will only "assume" or "hypothetically admit" these factual allegations to be true. The reason is evident: At this stage, the investigating commissioner or the Court is not delving into the merit of the case, but only in the process of determining whether it has jurisdiction over the complaint.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.In his Complaint, Atty. Francisco argues:
Such act of dismissal based on a wayward ground is a dismal failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the rules and constitutes gross ignorance of the law.To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, as a rule, there must be a showing that the error was gross and patent as to support a conclusion that the actor was so moved with malice, bad faith, corruption, fraud, and dishonesty.[23] Nevertheless, in Coronado v. Judge Rojas,[24] the Court explained that ignorance of an elementary rule, law, or principle is considered gross even in the absence of proof of malice, bad faith, corruption, fraud, and dishonesty. When the law is sufficiently basic or elementary, to not know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Otherwise, not knowing it would only amount to simple — not gross — ignorance of the law.[25]
If the law, rule or principle is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it already constitutes gross ignorance of the law, without the complainant having to prove malice or bad faith on the part of the erring Judge, as the same can clearly be inferred from the error committed x x x.
The primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is to see that is done ---- to the State that its penal laws are not broken and order maintained; to the victim that his or her rights are vindicated and to the offender, that he is justly punished for his crime.
The law makes it a legal duty for the prosecuting officers to file the charges against whomsoever the evidence may show to be responsible for the offense x x x.[22]
SECTION 31. Prosecution of criminal cases. — The primary duty of a public prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done.In sum, assuming that the allegations in the Complaint are true, coupled with a cursory review of the relevant legal bases that were also alleged in the Complaint, it appears that Atty. Suñega-Lagman's actuations could be considered violations of the CPR (now the new CPRA).
Suppressing facts, concealing of, tampering with or destroying evidence, coaching a witness, or offering false testimony is cause for disciplinary action.
The obligations of a public prosecutor shall also be imposed upon lawyers in private practice who are authorized to prosecute under the direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. (6.01a)
3. Accept jurisdiction if the acts or omission complained of as alleged in the complaint 1) seek to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar; or 2) constitute a violation of the New CPRA, or 3) make such lawyer unfit for practice. Otherwise, refer the case to the concerned agency, the Ombudsman, or the Supreme Court, or dismiss the same.Under Section 2, Canon VI of the new CPRA, a verified complaint against a government lawyer which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar shall only be filed with the Supreme Court. Section 6 thereof also states that in cases of complaints against a government lawyer, the investigating commissioner shall determine whether the concerned agency, the Ombudsman; or the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Further, the IBP shall proceed with the case 1) if the allegations in the complaint touch upon the lawyer's continuing obligations under the new CPRA, or 2) if the allegations, assuming them to be true, make the lawyer unfit to practice the profession. Otherwise, the investigating commissioner shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed.
Allegations of acts or omissions pertaining to the government lawyers' performance of their official duties would almost always touch upon their fitness to practice the profession. |
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.While the government lawyers in the above discussed cases were correctly found guilty of violating the CPR, these cases also show that even the most basic function of a government lawyer could expose him or her to administrative liability if attended by allegations of negligence, ignorance of the law, bad faith, malice etc. Moreover, the generality of the CPR, particularly Canon 1, renders an allegation of any violation of law or departure from any established rule or legal process a potential violation of said Code. As far as the new CPRA is concerned, Canon III, Section 2 is a provision similar to Canon 1. Thus:
SECTION 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. (1a)In these instances, if the allegations in the disbarment complaint are assumed to be true, a violation of the new CPRA would almost surely be discovered.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. (12a)
As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity and zeal within the bounds of the law and the CPRA. (17a, 19a)
Acts or omissions considered as violation of the New CPRA may also constitute a violation of the concerned agency's code of conduct |
3. Dedication, Diligence and Competence – As the people's representative, a prosecutor must perform duties with utmost competence, responsibility, earnestness, and vigor.While it was already discussed that the alleged wrongdoing committed by Atty. Suñega-Lagman could constitute gross ignorance of the law, it could also be considered a violation of the abovequoted rule of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors, which imposes upon a public prosecutor the duty to know and apply the laws and jurisprudence applicable to the undisputed facts of the case being investigated. This is precisely the bone of Atty. Francisco's contention. He claims that Atty. Suñega-Lagman failed to apply "basic legal commands embodied in the law and the rules" to the undisputed facts of his case. Interestingly, the annotated version of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors, quoted under this rule, the case of Mercado et al., v. Hon. Salcedo,[31] which discussed gross ignorance of the law:
x x x3.4. A prosecutor should prepare a well-reasoned and defensible resolution taking into consideration the undisputed facts and circumstances and those established by the evidence vis-à-vis the applicable laws and jurisprudence. The resolution should concisely summarize the facts, arguments, and applicable laws and jurisprudence of the case, state the rationale for the prosecutor's determination, and indicate in specific and unmistakable terms any laws violated.
Where the law is straightforward and its application to the facts is plainly evident, not to know the law, or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence; otherwise, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.[32]With respect to Atty. Suñega-Lagman's alleged violation of Canon 6.01 of the CPR, or Canon II, Section 31 of the new CPRA, the same could be a violation of Rules 3.1 and 4.1.a of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors, which states:
3.1. A prosecutor must recognize and respect the substantive rights of all parties and observe, not misuse, all rules of procedure.While not the focus of the Complaint here, but only to bolster the Court's contention, the annotated version of the Codes of Conduct of the Prosecution Service appears to suggest that Rule 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors, which states that "[a] prosecutor must exercise good judgment in handling inquest proceedings, summary and preliminary investigations of all cases,"[34] is analogous to the following canons of the CPR:
During inquest, a prosecutor must patiently and diligently explain to all parties present the nature of the proceedings and the rights of the respondent, including the right to preliminary investigation and to be assisted by counsel of the respondent's choice.
A prosecutor must ensure that each respondent is permitted to exercise the right to a preliminary investigation and prepare for a defense except in cases under summary investigation.
x x x
4.1. A prosecutor should exert effort to discontinue the prosecution of the case once an impartial investigation shows that the charge is unfounded.x x x
- A prosecutor should never compromise his/her office when conducting an inquest proceeding, summary investigation, or preliminary investigation. "Utang na loob" should not be a consideration in resolving cases in favor of a party. A prosecutor should always administer justice impartially, without fear or favor, ensuring that the guilty do not escape liability and the innocent do not suffer. (Emphasis supplied)[33]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 12:Under the new CPRA, Canon 12 could now be found in the second paragraph of Canon III, Section 2,[36] Canon 13 was reworded in Canon I, Section 2,[37] and Canon 18 is now Canon IV.[38]
"A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice."
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 13:
"A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court."
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18:
"A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence."[35]
The first additional guideline is an acknowledgment that the different government offices may have formulated and may be enforcing their own disciplinary rules and codes of conduct that are still not within the knowledge of the Court. Thus, to correctly determine who should assume jurisdiction, the Court will exert all reasonable efforts to familiarize itself with the different rules or codes implemented by the different government offices.
- To properly determine whether the malfeasance committed properly pertains to the disciplinary powers of the appropriate government office, the Court or the investigating commissioner shall require the said office to verify the existence of any rules, guidelines, or code governing the conduct of the respondent government lawyer.
- In cases where the complaint alleges a wrongdoing that constitutes a violation of both the new CPRA/CPR, and of the appropriate government office's rules or code of conduct, the Court or the investigating commissioner shall proceed with the case pursuant to Canon VI, Section 6 of the new CPRA. The Court or the investigating commissioner shall refer the complaint to the concerned government office for its appropriate action, even if there is a finding that the respondent government lawyer is not liable under the new CPRA.
SECTION 28. Dignified government service. — Lawyers in government service shall observe the standard of conduct under the CPRA, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and other related laws and issuances in the performance of their duties.Application to the case at bar
Any violation of the CPRA by lawyers in government service shall be subject to disciplinary action, separate and distinct from liability under pertinent laws or rules[39]. (6a)
Atty. Sunega-Lagman's failure to discern falsehood in her resolution dismissing Atty. Francisco's complaint is not gross ignorance of the law. |
In order, however, to be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, this Court has laid down a caveat that for liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous but, most importantly, that he was actuated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.[41]Nevertheless, where the law is straightforward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[42]
SECTION 33. Serious offenses. — Serious offenses include:However, neither could We ascribe bad faith, malice, or corrupt motives in Atty. Suñega-Lagman's decision to dismiss Atty. Francisco's criminal complaint. A review of respondent's ruling revealed that it was not arrived at arbitrarily. Respondent cited grounds based on her personal assessment of the facts and of the applicable laws and jurisprudence. Thus:
x x x
(h) Gross ignorance of the law or procedure, or the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence, when either is attended by bad faith, malice or corrupt motive; x x x
Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. The elements of the felony are:It must be emphasized that the Court, in deciding administrative complaints against public prosecutors, is not interested in judging whether respondent's ratiocination on the application is correct. Our only concern here is to decide whether respondent's error was so gross as to amount to fraud and dishonesty.[47]
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.
(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused. Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal malice, with the consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false with the intent that it should be received as statement of what was true in fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately" implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent acts. It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of the truth. x x x
The alleged perjurious statements of respondents herein are embodied in a Conference Brief under II STIPULATION OF FACT submitted by them in CBD Case No. 18-5542 (Adm. Case No. 11683) against complainant herein.
Considering that these statements alleged to be perjurious are mere proposals for stipulations offered to herein complainant and it is up to the latter to accept or reject such facts, there can be no "willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood" on the part of herein respondents.
Henceforth, the instance case is dismissed for lack of probable cause.[46]
Atty. Suñega-Lagman did not violate Canon II, Section 31 of the new CPRA (formerly Canon 6, Rule 6.01 of the CPR). |
Pursuant to Section 28 of the new CPRA, the Court deems it proper to furnish the DOJ a copy of the Complaint as well as the Court's Decision for appropriate action |