August 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions >
[Adm. Case No. 5000 : August 27, 2008] ENGR. CRISOLOGO R. OMAGUING V. ATTY. BORROMEO B. PATANGAN :
[Adm. Case No. 5000 : August 27, 2008]
ENGR. CRISOLOGO R. OMAGUING V. ATTY. BORROMEO B. PATANGAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 27 August 2008
Adm. Case No. 5000 � Engr. Crisologo R. Omaguing v. Atty. Borromeo B. Patangan.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence and Counter Reaction dated March 30, 2006 filed by respondent Atty. Borromeo B. Patangan.
This case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by complainant Engr. Crisologo R. Omaguing who sought the disbarment of the respondent for the alleged malicious filing of an administrative case for malpractice against the complainant before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) which was eventually dismissed because of respondent�s own admission that the said case �erupted due to the misunderstanding among [his] brothers and that the [complainant] was merely dragged [in that] case,� and for the alleged unauthorized use by the respondent of the office supplies of the Commission on Elections. The respondent filed his comment on the complaint and the complainant filed his reply thereto in compliance with the orders of this Court. Thereafter, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its Report and Recommendation dated May 8, 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found that the respondent�s act of filing of the administrative case against the complainant before the PRC was baseless which constituted an infraction of his oath as a lawyer �not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same� and a violation of his duty not to delay any man for a corrupt motive or interest. Thus, the commission recommended that then respondent be reprimanded and fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the commission in a Resolution dated December 17, 2005 quoted as follows:
The Resolution of June 5, 2006 of this Court denied the said motion for lack of substantial merit without touching on the findings and penalty imposed on the respondent by the IBP Board of Governors.
After a judicious review of the records of this case, this Court finds that the subject motion merely reiterates the basic issues and the arguments which have already been duly passed upon by the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. There is no substantial matter adduced in the motion which will warrant a reversal of the findings and conclusion of the IBP.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Resolution No. XVII-2005-174 dated December 17, 2005 of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, ATTY. BORROMEO B. PATANGAN is hereby REPRIMANDED and FINED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a stern warning that further acts in contravention of his duties as a member of the legal profession will be treated more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Adm. Case No. 5000 � Engr. Crisologo R. Omaguing v. Atty. Borromeo B. Patangan.
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence and Counter Reaction dated March 30, 2006 filed by respondent Atty. Borromeo B. Patangan.
This case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by complainant Engr. Crisologo R. Omaguing who sought the disbarment of the respondent for the alleged malicious filing of an administrative case for malpractice against the complainant before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) which was eventually dismissed because of respondent�s own admission that the said case �erupted due to the misunderstanding among [his] brothers and that the [complainant] was merely dragged [in that] case,� and for the alleged unauthorized use by the respondent of the office supplies of the Commission on Elections. The respondent filed his comment on the complaint and the complainant filed his reply thereto in compliance with the orders of this Court. Thereafter, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its Report and Recommendation dated May 8, 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found that the respondent�s act of filing of the administrative case against the complainant before the PRC was baseless which constituted an infraction of his oath as a lawyer �not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same� and a violation of his duty not to delay any man for a corrupt motive or interest. Thus, the commission recommended that then respondent be reprimanded and fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the commission in a Resolution dated December 17, 2005 quoted as follows:
Hence, the Motion for Reconsideration to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence and Counter Reaction of the respondent which he filed as an appeal from the aforementioned Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2005-174
Adm. Case No. 5000
Crisologo R. Omaguing v.
Atty. Borromeo B. Patangan
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, here 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 Respondent�s violation of his oath as a lawyer and Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Borromeo Patangan is hereby REPRIMANDED and FINED P20,000.00 with stern warning that further acts in contravention of his duties as a member of the legal profession will be treated more severely.
The Resolution of June 5, 2006 of this Court denied the said motion for lack of substantial merit without touching on the findings and penalty imposed on the respondent by the IBP Board of Governors.
After a judicious review of the records of this case, this Court finds that the subject motion merely reiterates the basic issues and the arguments which have already been duly passed upon by the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. There is no substantial matter adduced in the motion which will warrant a reversal of the findings and conclusion of the IBP.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Resolution No. XVII-2005-174 dated December 17, 2005 of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, ATTY. BORROMEO B. PATANGAN is hereby REPRIMANDED and FINED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a stern warning that further acts in contravention of his duties as a member of the legal profession will be treated more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
