Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

A.C. No. 8178 (Napoleon Chiu v. Atty. Alan A. Leynes). � On 20 February 2009, Napoleon Chiu filed a verified complaint^[1] with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) against herein respondent, Alan Leynes claiming that the latter violated his oath as a member of the bar when he gave false statements in court during a hearing for Civil Case No. 05113841. Complainant Chiu is the defendant in Civil Case No. 05113841, filed with Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, while respondent Leynes is counsel for the plaintiff therein.

In the said case, complainant had filed an "Omnibus Motion To Litigate as Pauper and to Appear Pro Se" before the RTC praying that he be declared a pauper litigant.^[2] On 17 October 2006, respondent filed his Opposition,^[3] indicating at the bottom that a "copy was furnished" to "Napoleon Chiu, Defendant, 96 Dome St., A. Bonifacio, Caloocan City."^[4] Upon filing of the said pleading, the receiving clerk, of Branch 15 wrote the following note by hand on the receiving copy: "Note: Advance copy, but no proof of receipt for defendant."^[5]

Complainant elevated his Complaint to this Court, insisting that he never received a copy of the Opposition, nor was he in any way apprised of its filing. On 15 April 2009, the Supreme Court First Division required respondent to file his Comment within ten days from notice.^[6] On 20 July 2009, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.^[7] During the mandatory conferences held on 15 December 2009 and 19 January 2010, only respondent Leynes appeared.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP ruled that respondent Leynes violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by giving false and evasive responses to the RTC and the Commission. On 14 May 2011, the IBP Board of Governors unanimously approved the recommendation of the Commission, ruling that "xxx for being evasive and dishonest in his conduct before the Court as well as to the Commission, Atty. Alan A. Leynes is hereby REPRIMANDED."^[8]

Upon review, we affirm the findings of the IBP and hold that the case should now be deemed closed and terminated considering that no motion for reconsideration nor petition has been filed by any party.

The IBP correctly meted out the penalty of reprimand for the false representation respondent gave to the RTC and reiterated in the Comment he submitted to this Court. As borne out by respondent's own copy of the Opposition, the receiving clerk of Branch 15 indicated therein that there was no proof of receipt by the defendant below, herein complainant Chiu. Furthermore, Atty. Raul I. De la Cruz, the Branch Clerk of Court, certified and confirmed that the Opposition filed by Atty. Leynes did not contain proof of service.^[9]

However, instead of admitting his lapse to the RTC, respondent categorically declared that the pleading contained proof of service. During the hearing that took place on 22 February 2008, the trial court interposed the following clarificatory questions from both parties:                           

COURT
	Were you not copy furnished?
MR. CHIU
	No Your Honor.
COURT
	Do you have proof that he was furnished a copy?
ATTY. LEYNES
	Yes your Honor, there was a proof of service. That's what he claims, that he did not receive.
COURT
	Who receives it because you denied and then he claims that he did not receive?
ATTY. LEYNES
	Anyway, your Honor, the fact is, the records will bear that he filed a motion because he has a counter-claim and the counter-claim is not compulsory so he has to pay the filing fee for the counter-claim. And then he filed a Motion to Litigate as a Pauper.[10] (Emphasis supplied.)

As shown in the exchange above, respondent took an evasive tact and misled the Court with his answer. He violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: "A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court;" specifically 10.1 thereof, which prohibits any falsehood or artifice that may mislead the court. 

Finally, section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which governs the Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys, states:

If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension of disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. (Emphasis supplied.)

On 19 September 2011, the Director for Bar Discipline transmitted the records of the case and notified this Court that no motion for reconsideration was filed by either party. Since the transfer of this case to the Second Division,^[11]  no petition has been filed by complainant or any other interested party questioning the IBP Resolution. Upon inquiry with the OBC, no Motion for Reconsideration nor any pleading has been filed by either party. Thus, the case should now be deemed closed and terminated pursuant to Section 12(c) above. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the IBP Resolution having attained finality, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.

^[2] Id. at 3. 

^[3] Opposition, rollo, pp. 3-4. 

^[4] Rollo, p. 40. 

^[5] Id. at 39. 

^[6] Id. at 5. 

^[7] Rollo, p. 11. 

^[8] Id. at 42. 

^[9] Certification, rollo, p. 32. 

^[10] Transcript of Stenographic Notes, 22 February 2008, pp. 8-9, attached as Annex "B" to Complainant's Position Paper. 

^[11] Per Resolution dated 20 July 2011.