ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.C. No. 6337. December 8, 2004]

HECK vs. ADAZA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2004.

Adm. Case No. 6337 (Heinz R. Heck vs. Atty. Cesilo A. Adaza.)

Petitioner is the private complainant in a criminal case wherein respondent lawyer is counsel for the accused. Petitioner filed the instant complaint, imputing malice and bad faith against respondent Atty. Cesilo Adaza when the latter moved for the continuance of hearing in an on-going trial on the ground that he had another hearing on a similar date for the case of several persons accused of violating the Anti-Hazing Law. Petitioner claims that as certified by the Clerk of Court of the RTC Branch before which the case referred to by respondent was raffled to, the same case was disposed months before the claimed date of hearing.

Respondent counters that the certification presented by Heck was for a different case, as the case he was referring to in his Motion for Continuance was another criminal case pending before another court, as evidenced by the Subpoena and Notice of Hearing which respondent attached to his Answer.

Respondent points that complainant has been harassing him by instituting at least nine (9) criminal and administrative suits, most of which have been dismissed. Moreover, he attached a copy of a resolution of the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter recommending to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation the deportation of Heck and another alien, who, according to the IBP, have been filing numerous baseless cases against a number of lawyers, as well as "calling them names and threatening them verbally."

In his Reply, complainant insists that respondent was already aware of the conflict in his hearing dates and yet did not inform the court at an earlier time. He likewise claimed that respondent sought another continuance, which is now subject of another complaint for disbarment pending before this Court.

We hold that complainant's allegations of misconduct are unsubstantiated and have no merit. As sufficiently explained by Atty. Adaza, his motion for continuance, as well as his reason therefore, is valid and legitimate.

The success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored. Private persons, and particularly disgruntled clients, may not therefore be permitted to use the courts as vehicles through which to vent their spleen on attorneys. [1] cralaw

The Court cannot discount the statement of the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter that complainant has been filing numerous suits against lawyers merely to harass them. The Court notes that as against respondent alone, complainant has filed at least three administrative complaints within the span of three years.

It also appears from the records that Heck attested under oath in the Verification and Certification page of his complaint that he was a Filipino. [2] cralaw Yet, in his Reply to Adaza's Comment, Heck attached thereto a photocopy of his "Investors Visa," which indicates that he is actually a Swedish national. [3] cralaw Moreover, the resolution of the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter earlier adverted to likewise denotes Heck as an alien. Questions thus arise as to whether Heck had lied under oath before this Court in earlier asserting Filipino citizenship. Still, Heck deserves the opportunity to clarify this matter before the Court.

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is DISMISSED. Complainant Heinz R. Heck is required to SHOW CAUSE within fifteen (15) days why he should not be held in contempt for filing the instant baseless complaint, for indiscriminate filing of cases against lawyers and in alleging that he is a Filipino citizen in his Complaint.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Radomes v. Fabrigaras, 204 Phil. 1, 3-4 (1982), citing Santiago v. Calvo, 48 Phil. 919 (1926).

[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 7.

[3] cralaw Id. at 37.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com