Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 8554 : August 02, 2010] ATTY. BONIFACIO A. ALENTAJAN V. SENATOR MIRIAM P. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 August 2010 which reads as follows:

A.C. No. 8554 (Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan v. Senator Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago).

Before this Court is Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan's verified complaint^[1] dated February 2, 2010, seeking the disbarment of Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, unparliamentary behavior, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and obstruction of justice.

Atty. Alentajan claims that on January 18, 2010 Senator Santiago delivered a privilege speech^[2] before the Senate, falsely declaring that:

"In both cases, his lawyer is Bonifacio Alentajan, a lawyer kicked out of the Pasay City fiscal's office for the offense of corruption. As special assistant to the justice secretary, I was personally present, when  Alentajan wept crocodile tears and managed to plead with both the justice secretary and his undersecretary to let him resign instead. He is now facing two disbarment complaints, in addition to a third one that my staff will file against him. Alentajan, who does not even have a law office, is notorious among lawyers as a gun for hire."^[3]

Atty. Alentajan goes on to charge respondent senator of a) accumulating unexplained wealth, given that the value of her newly acquired properties is grossly disproportionate to her salary as a senator;^[4] b) giving unwarranted benefits to members of her family by having them appointed to the government; c) obstructing justice by preventing the police from investigating her son's death, which her family claimed to be a suicide; and d) using defamatory language against innocent people in violation of the code of professional responsibility.

In her comment with motion to dismiss^[5] dated Kime 21, 2010, Senator Santiago points out that Atty. Alentajan is guilty of forum shopping for filing the same complaint, either as counsel or complainant, in three different forums: in the Commission on Elections, in the Senate, and twice in this Court. Atty. Alentajan himself faces two disbarment complaints, Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco v. Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan in CBD Case 03-112^[6] and Jeffrey Patawaran v. Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan filed on November 3, 2009.^[7]

Senator Santiago points out that the present case is virtual duplicate of the disbarment complaint filed in A.C. 8519, Efren Battad v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Battad, according to the senator, was a mere surrogate of Atty. Alentajan who has now filed the complaint using his own name. Senator Santiago argues that, since the Court had already dismissed the Battad complaint, the present complaint may be deemed barred by prior judgment.

The Court indeed observes that the present case practically raises the same charges that it already ruled on in Battad v. Defensor-Santiago.^[8] The Court said in Battad:

"Aside from not complying with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, what complainant offered were nothing but vague and general averments which do not constitute sufficient bases of a disbarment complaint. To reiterate, in order for us to exercise the power to disbar, hte dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. As complainant failed to discharge this burden, we are left with no choice but to dismiss this complaint."^[9]

The Court cannot but reecho its ruling in that case. Here, the charges against Senator Santiago do not constitute sufficient grounds for subjecting her to disbarment proceedings. Except for the matter of his having been supposedly maligned by the senator in a privilege speech, Atty. Alentajan appears to have no personal knowledge of the matters he alleges in his complaint. He also has not submitted the affidavits of those who might have such required knowledge. As for matters that a senator utters in the course of a privilege speech, the Constitution provides that she cannot be made to answer for it in any other forum.^[10]

Considering the gravity of the penalty of disbarment and the inconvenience, trouble, and expense to which a lawyer charged with it will be subjected to, the Court will give due course only to complaints that are sufficient in substance.^[11]

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the present disbarment complaint against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for lack of substance.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

[1] Rollo, pp. 1-17.

[2] Id. at 20-22.

[3] Id. at 22.

[4] Id. at 10.

[5] Id. at 104-118.

[6] Id. at 349.

[7] Id. at 262-282.

[8] Id. at 166-170.

[9] Id. at 169.

[10] Article 6, Section 11, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

[11] Mataga v. Judge Rosete, 483 Phil. 235, 240 (2004), citing Atty, Cea v. Judge Paguio, 445 Phil. 533, 540 (2003).