ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.C. No. 5074. July 19, 1999]

FAIZAL U. HUSSIN, et al. vs. ATTY. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19, 1999.

A.C. No. 5074 (Faizal U. Hussin, et al vs. Atty. Rufus B. Rodriguez.)

On June 3, 1999, complainant Faizal U. Hussin filed a complaint-affidavit with this Court seeking the disbarment of Atty. Rufus B. Rodriguez, for alleged commission of offenses involving moral turpitude, to wit: two (2) counts of perjury and one (1) count of obstruction of justice.

The perjurious acts were allegedly committed when Atty. Rodriguez filed a rejoinder, under oath, with the Office of the Ombudsman,1 [Dated March 3, 1999, Rollo, Annex C.] in connection with a cease pending before it (OMB-ADM-0-98-0698 Buklod ng mga Kawani ng CID v. Rufus B. Rodriguez), containing false statements.

The above-mentioned case arose from the request made by Atty. Rodriguez, as Commissioner of Immigration, to the Department of Budget Management Secretary Benjamin Diokno, for the reconstitution of CID's plantilla and collapse of certain career positions. One of the positions affected was Legal Officer II, held by complainant Hussin. In said rejoinder, Atty. Rodriguez stated that the 24 positions sought to be collapsed in the Bureau of Immigration are not among those involving the 131 "midnight or snopaked" appointees. However, per letter-reply of Secretary Diokno,2 [Dated May 8, 1999, Rollo, Annex A.] the position held by Hussin was among those being requested for abolition.

Complainant likewise stressed that Atty. Rodriguez deliberately made false allegations in his rejoinder when he stated that he never appointed or designated consultants, contractuals or other non-career employees as Officers-in-charge, executive directors or supervisors who exercised control or supervision over regular and career employees. However, Atty. Rodriguez issued personnel orders directing and appointing personnel in certain positions. Complainant avers that such contradictions constitute perjury and obstruction of justice.

We do not agree. We consider the allegations to be insufficient to charge respondent with disbarment, and dismiss the complaint for lack of merit."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE