EN BANC
ATTY.
JULITO D.
VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA,
ARLEEN J.
RAMOS,
DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDA DARAUG,
DR.
REMIGIA
NATHANIELZ,
CELEDONIA CORONACION,
AND JOSE RABALO,
Complainants,
A.C.
No.
4984
April 1, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
FELINA DASIG,
Respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PER
CURIAM: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is an
administrative
case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig,[1]
an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge
involves
gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath for
having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the
detriment
of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Almost all complainants
in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their
sworn
Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 1998,
complainants
allege that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service,
CHED,
committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27,[2]
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Sometime in
August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent’s designation as
Officer-in-Charge
of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a
teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches,
Quezon
City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for the
facilitation
of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal
Affairs Service, CHED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Likewise, sometime
in July to August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent’s
designation
as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from
Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of P18,000.00 to
P20,000.00
for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) Likewise, sometime
in September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent’s
designation
as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from
Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of
her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal
Affairs
Service, CHED. In addition, Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje
to register her birth anew with full knowledge of the existence of a
prior
registration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) Likewise, sometime
in August to September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent’s
designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she
demanded
from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was
subsequently
confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less
for
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending
before
the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. In addition, the Respondent even
suggested
to Ms. Ng to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen by Respondent Dasig to
facilitate
the application for correction of name.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants likewise
aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing
eleven
(11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, complainants
charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36[5]
of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just
debts
owing to “Borela Tire Supply” and “Nova’s Lining Brake & Clutch” as
evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued,[6]
the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants also allege
that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against
complainant
Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she
encouraged
and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail
Management
and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening
of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave
threats
against the respondent and her son, docketed as Criminal Case No.
86052,
was lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, complainants
allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph
Estrada
a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the good names and
reputation
of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her
ill
motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of
securing
an appointment for herself.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In our resolution of
February 3, 1999, we required respondent to file a Comment on the
charges.[10]
A copy of said resolution was sent to the respondent at her address at
Blk. 4, Lot 12, Hobart II Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City, only to
be returned to this Court with the notation “Unclaimed.”[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 5, 1999, we
directed that a copy of the resolution of February 3, 1999, be served
by
registered mail to respondent at her office address in CHED.cralaw:red
In a letter dated August
28, 2000, the Postmaster of the Ortigas Center Post Office informed the
Court that the said mail matter had been delivered to, received by, and
signed for by one Antonio Molon, an authorized agent of respondent on
August
27, 1999.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 22, 2000,
we granted complainant’s motion to refer the complaint to the
Commission
on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,
report, and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its order dated February
6, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed respondent to
submit
her Answer to the Complaint, failing which she would be considered in
default
and the case heard ex parte. Respondent failed to heed said order and
on
January 8, 2002, the Commission directed her anew to file her Answer,
but
again she failed to comply with the directive. As a result, the
Commission
ruled that she had waived her right to file her Comment or Answer to
the
Complaint and the case was mainly resolved on the basis of the
documents
submitted and on record.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its report and recommendation,
dated April 5, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline stated as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the foregoing evidence
on record, it can be concluded that respondent in violation of her oath
as a government official and as a member of the Bar, indeed made
unlawful
demands or attempted to extort money from certain people who had
pending
applications/requests before her office in exchange for her promise to
act favorably on said applications/requests. Clearly, respondent
unlawfully
used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the
detriment
of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the foregoing reasons,
it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for the maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further
warning
that similar action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of
respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 3, 2002, the
IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393, the full text
of which reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex “A:; and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules;
and considering that respondent unlawfully used her public office in
order
to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and
reputation
of the Commission on Higher Education, Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED
from
the practice of law for three (3) years.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the threshold is
the query of whether respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge
(OIC)
of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her
malfeasance,
considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint,
was “Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development
Division,
Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Generally speaking,
a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
member
of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government
official.[14]
However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this
Court
as a member of the Bar.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the record
shows that the respondent, on various occasions, during her tenure as
OIC,
Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon,
Rosalie
B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as
consideration
for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests
before
her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given the respondent’s
failure,
despite the opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP
Commission
on Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. We find that respondent’s
misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect
her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to
have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand
sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and
requests
awaiting action by her office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Attorney’s Oath
is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any
violation
thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary
action.
The Attorney’s Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to
delay
no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[16]
Respondent’s demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of
pending applications or requests before her office violates such duty,
and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such
actions
likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A member of the Bar
who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations.
Hence,
the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988,
was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but
of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear
from
Canon 6[17]of
said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost
fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in
the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is
subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent’s attempts
to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending
before
her office are violative of Rule 1.01[18]
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of
the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful
acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02[19]
of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting
their
private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting
gifts
or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval
of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondent’s conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good
moral
character required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a
high
public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to
refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
confidence
of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty
and
fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a
keeper
of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social
responsibility,
perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For her violation of
the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 1[20]
and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly
for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal
Services,
CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three
years’
suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law,
as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright
disbarment.
Her name shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of
this
decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and
dishonesty
in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let copies of this Resolution
be furnished to the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the
respondent,
as well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to
all its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination
to all courts throughout the country.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales,
Callejo,
Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Admitted to the Bar, May 30, 1986. Per 1998 LAW LIST, p. 232.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court;
grounds
therefor. - 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 wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at
law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers,
constitutes malpractice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
These include: Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R.
Coronacion.
Rodrigo R. Coronacion, Jr., and Jose R. Rabalo, I.S. No. 96-19974 for
Perjury,
False Testimony: Felma S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R.
Coronacion
and Rodrigo R. Coronacion, Jr., I.S. No. 96-25879 for Oral Defamation
and
Unjust Vexation; Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Francis Lacandazo,
Mark Imperio and Michael Namoca, l.S. No. 96-27189 for Libel; Felma S.
Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R. Coronacion, Rodrigo R.
Coronacion,
Jr., and Jose R. Rabalo, I.S. No. 96-19974 for Libel; Felina S. Dasig
v.
Celedonia Coronacion, I.S. No. 97-3026 for Grave Oral Defamation;
Felina
S. Dasig v. Celedonia Coronacion, Francis Lacandazo, Mark Imperio, and
Michael Namoca, I.S. No. 96-27189, for violation of Art. 290, Rev.
Penal
Code; Felina S. Dasig v. Asuncion Lacandazo and Francis Lacandazo, I.S.
No. 96-27189 for Grave Oral Defamation; Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba
v. Ma. Teresa Galdon Lingal, I.S. No. 96-25870 for Oral Defamation,
Threat;
Felina S. Dasig v. Ruel Martin and Jean Martin, I.S. No. 97-348 for
Libel;
Felina S. Dasig v. Celedonia Coronacion, I.S. No. 97-7218 for Perjury,
Libel; and Felina S. Dasig v. Francis Lacandazo. Michael Namoca. and
Mark
Imperio. I.S. No. 97-8864 for Perjury.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
SEC. 36. Discipline: General Provisions. x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b)
The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(22)
Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due
to
the government.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, pp. 22-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 26-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 28-30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 32-35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 47.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[12]
Id. at 57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 61.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, A.M. No. R-705-RTJ, 23 August 1989, 176 SCRA
634, 649.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Dinsay v. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995, 27 November 1996, 264 SCRA 703, 706;
Collantes
v. Renomeron, A.C. No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584, 589.
[16]
Rule 1.03. - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
CANON 6. - These Canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in
the discharge of their official tasks.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
or deceitful conduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Rule 6.02. - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the
latter
to interfere with his public duties.
[20]
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |