ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 6355.
CHONA VENIEGAS-NAZARRO v. ATTY. LORENZO S. DANIPOG, DIRECTOR IV, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 29, 2006
A.C. No. 6355 (Chona Veniegas-Nazarro v. Atty. Lorenzo S. Danipog, Director IV, Civil Service Commission, Regional Office No. 1, San Fernando City, La Union.)
The instant Verified Affidavit-Complaint was filed by complainant Chona Veniegas-Nazarro against respondent Atty. Lorenzo S. Danipog, Regional Director IV of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 1, based in San Fernando City, La Union. Complainant particularly seeks to hold respondent liable for a Certification he issued on 17 June 2003, certifying that "Millie K. Ramirez, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent (Officer-In-Charge), DepEd Division of Pangasinan II, Binalonan, Pangasinan, has no pending administrative case." [1] cralaw
Complainant alleges that just 15 days prior to the issuance of the Certification, or on 2 June 2003, she filed an administrative case for "grave misconduct and act unbecoming of a public education official" against the aforementioned Ramirez before the CSC Regional Office No. 1. The said administrative case related to an incident at the 2003 graduation ceremony at the high school were complainant was teaching, during which she was publicly embarrassed by Ramirez, a guest at the event, for a perceived slight. [2] cralaw In relation to this incident, a criminal complaint for slander by deed was filed by complainant against Ramirez, apart from the said administrative complaint with the CSC. [3] cralaw
Respondent, as the Regional Director of the CSC Regional Office No. 1, issued a letter-order dated 6 June 2003 requiring Ramirez to submit her comment/answer within five days from receipt thereof. [4] cralaw However, on 17 June 2003, respondent issued the aforementioned certification attesting that there was no pending administrative case against Ramirez. Complainant argues that the certification is incorrect in view of the "administrative case" that she filed against Ramirez which respondent evidently knew about. Accordingly, the instant complaint was filed, imputing an unlawful, fraudulent, and dishonest act on the part of respondent in issuing the certification.
Respondent for his part does not deny issuing the Certification, but points out that under paragraph 2 of Section 34 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, or CSC Resolution No. 991936, a "pending administrative case" is construed as a state "when the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge; or in case of a complaint filed by a private person, a prima facie case is found to exist by the disciplining authority." [5] cralaw Respondent notes that as of the date he issued the Certification, no formal charge had yet been filed against Ramirez, as the case was still pending preliminary investigation. Neither could it have been established by then that a prima facie case existed against Ramirez since the investigating attorney assigned to the complaint was still awaiting the comment/answer of Ramirez and thus was not yet in a position to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case against her.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. On 1 September 2005, the Investigating Commissioner [6] cralaw rendered a Report and Recommendation that endorsed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground complainant is guilty of forum-shopping. It was noted that complainant had filed an administrative complaint against respondent before the Career Executive Service Board, as well as a criminal and administrative complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon. Both these complaints, involving as they do the same cause of action as the present administrative complaint, were dismissed for utter lack of merit.
The IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation in a Resolution dated 17 December 2005.
The IBP erred in finding complainant guilty of forum-shopping and in predicating the dismissal of the complaint on that ground. As held in Lucente v. Evangelista, [7] cralaw forum-shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings. [8] cralaw Therein, the Court held that the complainants did not engage in forum-shopping by filing the disbarment complaint despite the pendency of a criminal case involving the same issue.
Indeed, only the Court has the power to cause the disbarment of lawyers or their suspension from the practice of law. Even assuming that respondent had been found guilty by the Career Executive Service Board, or was criminally prosecuted by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, respondent's status as a legal practitioner would remain unaffected by the assumed rulings. The instant complaint disputes respondent's fitness to be a lawyer, which is a different matter from his fitness to remain in public office, or his fitness to remain out of prison. The IBP is doubly wrong in absolving respondent on the ground of forum-shopping on complainant's part and in relying solely on that ground for its recommendation.
Nonetheless, the Court agrees to dismiss the complaint against respondent, but this time based on the ground invoked by respondent. Indeed, there is a sea of difference between an "administrative complaint" and an "administrative case."
The definition of the term "pending administrative case," as utilized in the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases of the CSC, clearly indicates that when the disputed Certification was issued on 17 June 2003, the complaint against Ramirez could not yet be considered as a "pending administrative case." No formal charge had yet been issued by the disciplinary authority.
Neither could it be said at that point that "a prima facie case was found to exist by the disciplinary authority." Respondent does point out that under Section 12 of the Uniform Rules of Administrative Cases, concerning preliminary investigations, it is only "upon receipt of the counter-affidavit or comment under oath" that the "disciplining authority may now determine whether a prima facie case" existed to warrant the issuance of a formal charge. [9] cralaw It was only on 6 June 2003, or 11 days prior to the issuance of the Certification, that an order was issued requiring Ramirez to submit her comment/answer within five days from receipt thereof. Evidently, as of the date the Certification was issued, no counter-affidavit or comment under oath was yet submitted by Ramirez, and thus, no basis could be had yet for the determination of a prima facie case against her.
Premises considered, given the governing definition of "pending administrative case" as utilized under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases used by the CSC, respondent committed no deceit and uttered no falsehood when he issued the Certification in question.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint for disbarment is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 10.
[2] cralaw See rollo , p. 11.
[3] cralaw Id. at 6.
[4] cralaw Id. at 9.
[5] cralaw Id. at 31.
[6] cralaw Rebecca Villanueva-Maala.
[7] cralaw 444 Phil. 721 (2003).
[8] cralaw Id. at 727.
[9] cralaw Rollo , p. 32.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
