ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 5167. September 4, 2000]

MAXIMO CRUZ vs. ATTY. RENIE M. DUBLIN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 4 2000.

A.C. No. 5167 (Maximo Cruz v. Atty. Renie M. Dublin.)

In a letter dated June 29, 1999 seeking the disbarment of Atty. Renie Dublin, complainant Maximo Cruz alleged that in a meeting called by Atty. Dublin on August 8, 1999, Atty. Dublin allegedly asked workers at the Dole Philippines, Inc. to "give generously at least ten (10) percent commission to the three (3) justices assigned at the First Division of the Supreme Court" in exchange for a favorable decision in a case for illegal dismissal filed by them against Dole. Complainant alleged that he believed Arty. Dublin was not telling the truth for which the latter should be disbarred for grave misconduct.

In his comment dated April 1, 2000, respondent stated that he is the lawyer of some 1,407 employees of Dole who filed a case for illegal dismissal against said corporation and whose case is now on appeal before this Court and that complainant Cruz is one of the employees of Dole. He denied complainant's allegations and stated that his purpose in convening some three hundred (300) other dismissed employees was to warn them against the representations of a former employee of his, a certain Edmund Jumawan, that whenever the latter came to Manila, he talked to some members of the Court who could help employees secure a favorable decision. According to Atty. Dublin, it was Jumawan who had been trying to convince employees like complainant to contribute money so they could expedite the decision in their case and finally get their backwages.

Complainant subsequently filed an affidavit of desistance, dated February 23, 2000, on the ground that he was no longer interested in the prosecution of his complaint. He explained he had just recently read the pleadings in their case and was convinced that Atty. Dublin had served them after all.

The Court, noting that complainant did not retract the statement in his complaint which tended to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Court, required complainant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

In his explanation, complainant offers his sincerest apology to Atty. Dublin for having filed said disbarment case and states it was never his intention to put the integrity of the Court in bad light. He retracts his allegation that Atty. Dublin had asked them for money to pay to certain members of this Court. He explains that he misunderstood the message of Atty. Dublin who, he says, merely tried to warn them against the representations of Jumawan.

We find complainant's explanation unsatisfactory. While he apologizes to Arty. Dublin, complainant does not similarly express regrets for the derogatory remark about the Court which he attributed to Atty. Dublin in his letter-complaint. Apparently, complainant does not realize that the judiciary exists for the protection of the rights and liberties of individuals. If the people lose their faith in it, the protection of rights and liberties will be destroyed. Hence, the duty of preserving respect for the courts rests not only on the judges but also on the citizens who depend on the courts for justice. The Court will not hesitate to use its power to protect itself from irresponsible statements which degrade or tend to bring it into disrepute. That complainant has retracted his statement and admitted that he was hasty in attributing a statement to Atty. Dublin which is derogatory to the Supreme Court does not completely excuse him.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to ADMONISH Maximo Cruz to observe proper respect towards the courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court, and never bandy about derogatory remarks about them unless he has verified the remarks to be true. He is WARNED that repetition of this or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Complainant's motion to withdraw the complaint is GRANTED and this case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE