Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 8352 : January 11, 2010] NOEL CRUZ BAYONA V. ATTY. EVANGELINE MENDOZA FRANCISCO:

A.C. No. 8352 (Noel Cruz Bayona v. Atty. Evangeline Mendoza Francisco). �  Complainant Noel Cruz Bayona, a Pasay City councilor, filed before this Court a complaint-affidavit, charging respondent Atty. Evangeline Mendoza Francisco, Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City. with Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, and violations of the Rules of Court and of the Lawyers" Oath. Complainant alleges that the violations were committed in connection with a preliminary investigation conducted by respondent in a case against the former and his wife for violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, and the subsequent resolution by respondent to file the corresponding information. In particular, complainant accuses respondent of:

1. not referring the case filed against complainant to the Lupon, as provided for in R.A. No. 7610;^[1]

2. disobeying the Rules of Evidence because there was no evidence to support the claims for child abuse;"^[2]

3. disobeying R.A. No. 7610, which states that the same covers only cases of serious physical injuries and excludes slight physical injuries;^[3]

4. disobeying the law on one criminal resolution theory in coming out with five Informations for child abuse, one Information for maltreatment and one Information for slight physical injuries, which all stemmed from one incident and should be the subject of only one Information;^[5]

5. doing falsehood and consenting to the doing of falsehood by deciding the preliminary investigation in order for the case to be filed in court;^[6]

6. wittingly and willingly promoting groundless, false and unlawful suit by causing the filing of the above-mentioned seven Informations, which were subsequently quashed by the trial court;^[7]

7. not conducting herself as a lawyer according to her best knowledge and discretion since it was clear that she should have dismissed the complaints and declared that there was no probable cause for such;^[8] and

8. not exercising good fidelity to her clients and to the courts^[9] because, as a prosecutor, it was her duty not to charge complainant and his wife in court when the evidence does not warrant the same.^[10]

Respondent, in her Comment,^[11]  denied complainant's accusations. She avers that a perusal of the disbarment complaint reveals that the acts complained of, if true, do not call for the remedy of disbarment but for remedies available under the Rules of Court, such as a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review. She points out that the complaint was filed three years after the acts complained of, making complainant's motive suspect. She also asserts that the complamt is full of inaccuracies, if not outright lies. She stresses that she properly and faithfully discharged her functions as Public Prosecutor. Her resolution finding probable cause to charge complainant and his wife was duly approved by the City Prosecutor. Prior to their arraignment, complainant and his wife filed a Motion to Quash the Informations, which the trial court granted. The court further ordered respondent to file only one Information, which she did. After the admission of the new Information, complainant and his wife filed all kinds of motions, which were all denied by the court. Then, after several more attempts to avoid being arraigned, complainant and his wife were finally arraigned on July 28, 2009. Thus, complainant set his sights on putting respondent's credibility and integrity in question. She, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the instant, complaint.

The complaint is without merit.

The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not limited to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on those found culpable of misconduct, but also involves the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proving unethical conduct rests upon complainant, and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if he establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.^[12]

In this case, as pointed out by respondent herself, the remedies to complainant's grievances can be found under the Rules of Court, all of which can be raised within the ordinary course of court proceedings, and which the complainant had, in fact, at various times, resorted to. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that respondent committed mistakes in the performance of her duties as prosecutor, complainant has not shown that the same amounted to dishonesty, deceit, or grave misconduct as to warrant a finding of administrative liability.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the complaint is

DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 11^th day of January 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 2.

^[2] Id.

^[3] Id.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id. at 14.

^[6] Id. at 2.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Id. at 2-3.

^[9] Id. at 3.

^[10]  Id. at 17.

^[11]  Id. at 84-88.

^[12] Gregory U. Chan v. NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Ally. Jose Raulito E. Paras, A.C. No. 7547, September 4, 2009.