ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Administrative Case No. 6747. July 11, 2006]

ATTY. MA. DELIA G. CIOCON v. ATTY. ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 11, 2006

Administrative Case No. 6747 (Atty. Ma. Delia G. Ciocon v. Atty. Antonio R. Bautista)

On October 15, 2004 , petitioner Atty. Ma. Delia G. Ciocon filed a complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Antonio R. Bautista before the Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 04-1340.

After several motions filed by both parties, Atty. Ciocon filed a Motion to Recuse and to Transfer Case to the Honorable Supreme Court on December 15, 2004 arguing that she will never get a fair and impartial hearing before the Commission, IBP on the grounds that: the Commission, IBP miserably failed to raffle the case with dispatch and raffled it only upon her motion after a month of deliberate inaction; the raffle of the case was conducted without notifying her, notwithstanding her prayer that the raffle be conducted in the presence of the concerned parties or their representatives; the Commission, IBP allowed Atty. Bautista to define and defend the issue of collusion she raised in her Motion to Conduct an Inquiry into the Matter of Collusion between Atty. Bautista and the four ACCRA lawyers where the Honorable Commission's National Director Atty. Rogelio Vinluan belong together with a good number of its Hearing Commissioners and Atty. Bautista's daughter; and the Commission, IBP has bent over backwards by permitting Atty. Bautista to make a mockery of the summary nature of the disbarment proceedings as mandated by the IBP Rules for allowing to file a motion to take oral deposition of the complainant and for the production of documents which are applicable only in civil cases but never in disbarment cases.

On January 4, 2005, Atty. Bautista filed an Ad Cautelam Comment/Opposition to the said Motion to Recuse.

On February 3, 2005, Atty. Bautista filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ciocon before the Commission, IBP (CBD Case No. 05-1414).

On June 3, 2005, Atty. Ciocon filed a letter-complaint dated June 1, 2005 before the Court, praying among others that: 1) the IBP through the Commission recuse itself from further hearing the disbarment case she filed against respondent Atty. Antonio R. Bautista (CBD Case No. 04-1340) and the counter-disbarment case filed by Atty. Bautista against her (CBD Case No. 05-1414); and 2) for the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of Atty. Bautista pending resolution of the case arguing inter alia that the Commission, IBP has not acted upon her Motion to Recuse and to Transfer Case to the Supreme Court dated December 15, 2004 allegedly because of the collusion between Atty. Bautista and some lawyers of the ACCRA Law Office whose two senior partners happen to be ranking officers of the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline i.e. Atty. Teresita Herbosa and Atty. Rogelio Vinluan and that neither officer disclosed the fact that Atty. Bautista's daughter is a senior associate of The said law firm.

On June 28, 2005, the Court required Atty. Bautista to Comment on the aforesaid letter-complaint of Atty. Ciocon. On July 27, 2005, Atty. Bautista filed his Comment.

In a Resolution dated November 22, 2005, the Court required Atty. Herbosa and Atty. Vinluan to Comment on the allegations of Atty. Ciocon in her aforesaid letter-complaint and denied the prayer of Atty. Ciocon therein that Atty. Bautista be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

On January 30, 2006, Atty. Ciocon filed a Manifestation and Motion dated January 23, 2006 informing the Court that Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes issued an Order dated December 19, 2005 denying the Motion to Recuse and to Transfer Case to the Supreme Court and setting the case for mandatory conference on January 20, 2006 thus pre-empting the ruling of the Court on the letter-complaint of Atty. Ciocon dated June 1, 2005 and that Commissioner Reyes be made to show why he tried to pre-empt the ruling of the Court.

In the Resolution of March 7, 2006, the Court: 1) denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of November 22, 2005 dated December 16, 2005 filed by Atty. Ciocon, 2) noted: Atty. Bautista's Opposition to the said Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Ciocon dated December 27, 2005 and the Reply thereto of Atty. Ciocon dated January 10, 2006; Comment of Attys. Herbosa and Vinluan dated December 19, 2005 in compliance with the Resolution of November 22, 2005 and the Reply thereto filed by Atty. Ciocon dated January 10, 2006; and 3) required Commissioner Reyes to Comment within 15 days on the Atty. Ciocon's Manifestation and Motion dated January 23, 2006.

On June 7, 2006, the Office of the Clerk of Court, En Banc received the Comment of Commissioner Reyes dated April 24, 2006.

Considering the foregoing and without easting aspersion on the IBP and to remove all doubts and perceived bias and partiality against the IBP, the Court RESOLVED to:

1.� GRANT the Motion to Transfer Case to the Court;

2.� DESIGNATE Executive Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., Regional Trial Court of Manila to conduct an investigation and submit a report and recommendation thereon pursuant to Section 13, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, within 90 days from receipt of records; and

3.� DIRECT the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines to transmit the complete records of CBD Cases Nos. 04-1430 and 05-1414 to Executive Judge Eugenio, Jr. within 30 days from notice hereof. (J. Carpio on official leave)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE