Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[Adm. Case No. 3187. August 14, 1992.]

MYRNA D. ROQUE and ROBERTO P. CRUZADO, Complainants, v. ATTY. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; ATTORNEY APPOINTED AS INVESTIGATOR SHOULD MANIFEST IMPARTIALITY AT ALL TIMES; NOT MET IN CASE AT BAR. — Respondent was tasked to conduct the formal investigation in Adm. Case No. 86-884 filed by complainant Roque against Panelo, and thereafter to submit his findings and recommendation. What facts to include or exclude in his report, his findings and how to support them, as well as his recommendation — all these necessarily entail the exercise of sound discretion and impartial judgment. Admittedly, it was respondent himself who drafted the decision in the case, which draft became the basis for the final adjudication adopted by the COA. Indeed, the manner of presenting the facts and the consequent recommendation can influence the reviewing authority. In fact, a perusal of both the draft decision submitted by respondent and the decision finally adopted by the COA would reveal that, except for the difference in the penalties imposed, the final decision had all the earmarks of the preliminary draft. Thus, respondent should have refrained from drinking and dining with Panelo’s counsel. It is a rule of general application that an attorney (much more an investigator, as in the case of respondent) should avoid, if not altogether eliminate, even the slightest appearances of impropriety.

2. ID.; ID.; A MAN OF LAW SHOULD NEVER USE HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE AND INFLUENCE TO FRIGHTEN OR COERCE ANYONE; CASE AT BAR. — When a lowly employee is summoned to appear before the Chief Security Officer and there questioned by a lawyer who is his superior, and who happens in this case to be respondent himself, and warned of dismissal from employment, a possible litigation and its dire consequences, that employee is, in effect, under threat or intimidation. The excuse of respondent that a threat to prosecute is no intimidation deserves scant consideration. The instant complaint involves the fitness of a lawyer to continue his membership with the Philippine Bar, where he is expected to promote respect for law and legal processes. For sure, We are not here concerned with intimidation as a requisite to vitiate consent in entering into contracts, as cited by respondent to support his argument. Here, We take into serious account the fact that respondent is a lawyer, a superior who threatened a subordinate complainant with dismissal and a court suit. A man of the law should never use his legal expertise and influence in order to frighten or coerce anyone, specially the ordinary man who looks up to him for justice.

3. ID.; ID.; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS REQUIRED; CASE AT BAR. — Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. A member of the Bar must act with integrity, honesty and professional decorum. He must comport himself in a manner which will secure and preserve the respect and confidence of the public. Both his professional and personal conduct must be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. He is required not only in fact to be of good moral character, but must also be seen to be leading a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. His deportment should be characterized by candor, competence and fairness. One of his duties is to maintain the high ethical standards of the legal profession. Accordingly, respondent must be censured for his failure to comply with the ethical standards required of members of the Bar as officers of the Court.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


In a verified complaint filed 17 February 1988 by Myrna D. Roque and Roberto P. Cruzado, Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio was charged with gross misconduct and oppression. Eventually, the complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

Briefly, complainants charge that —

1. Respondent, a Legal Officer of the Commission on Audit appointed to investigate the charges filed by complainant Myrna D. Roque against a COA official Jovencio Panelo, displayed bias and partiality amounting to abuse of discretion: (a) respondent was seen "drinking and eating and making merry with the lawyer of Panelo at Balay Kaldingan, a restaurant cum beerhouse" ; 1 (b) respondent sat on the case filed by complainant against Panelo for almost a year; 2 (c) respondent conspired with Atty. Rogelio Tablang, then Division chief of the COA Legal Officer, to whom the case was assigned after respondent was relieved upon motion of complainant; and, (d) respondent drafted the decision in the case against Panelo even after the former was relieved of his assignment as "investigator" in the case. 3

2. Respondent is guilty of oppression for having summoned complainant Roberto P. Cruzado to the Office of the Chief, Security Affairs Service Unit, COA, and threatened him.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In his answer, respondent denies the allegations of the complainants and avers that the complaint was filed "purely out of malice and with an evil design to harass Respondent." 4

After hearing, the IBP rendered a decision 5 on 28 November 1991, dismissing the complaint against Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio for lack of merit, ruling that (a) respondent could not have been guilty of abuse of discretion as he was not vested with such discretion in the first place; 6 (b) intimacy or friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of one of the parties to a suit is not ground for disqualification, and that in the case at bar, respondent was not even a judge clothed with any discretionary power; 7 (c) respondent cannot be validly blamed for the supposed "inaction" as he was already relieved from acting on the Panelo case effective 14 May 1987 and the records show that he was no longer Legal Officer as early as 1 March 1987; 8 (d) there is no proof that respondent conspired with Atty. Rogelio Tablang and in fact, complainants never filed a case against the latter; 9 (e) the draft decision was written by the respondent, as directed by his superiors at the COA Legal Office, who reviewed the same, and a "draft" decision is nothing but a scrap of paper until the same is finalized and signed by the persons vested by law to sign the same; 10 and, (f) respondent could not be guilty of oppression since complainant Cruzado was "invited" by the Chief of the Security Affairs Service Unit himself in the latter’s official capacity and was not summoned by the respondent, and although respondent was present and admitted informing complainant Cruzado the expenses the latter may incur in the event a case was filed against him (Cruzado), "a threat to prosecute is not considered an intimidation." 11

We differ from the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Although there may not be sufficient evidence to prove that respondent Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio acted with abuse of discretion resulting in gross misconduct, We believe nevertheless that he displaced ethical infractions.

Undisputedly, as specified in COA Office Order No. 86-9877, 12 respondent was tasked to conduct the formal investigation in Adm. Case No. 86-884 filed by complainant Roque against Panelo, and thereafter to submit his findings and recommendation. What facts to include or exclude in his report, his findings and how to support them, as well as his recommendation — all these necessarily entail the exercise of sound discretion and impartial judgment.

Admittedly, it was respondent himself who drafted the decision in the case, which draft became the basis for the final adjudication adopted by the COA. Indeed, the manner of presenting the facts and the consequent recommendation can influence the reviewing authority. In fact, a perusal of both the draft decision submitted by respondent 13 and the decision finally adopted by the COA 14 would reveal that, except for the difference in the penalties imposed, the final decision had all the earmarks of the preliminary draft. Thus, respondent should have refrained from drinking and dining with Panelo’s counsel. It is a rule of general application that an attorney (much more an investigator, as in the case of respondent) should avoid, if not altogether eliminate, even the slightest appearances of impropriety.

Moreover, we find it difficult to believe that the reason why complainant Cruzado was "invited" to report to the Security Affairs Service Unit was precisely to protect his rights, as claimed by Respondent. When a lowly employee is summoned to appear before the Chief Security Officer and there questioned by a lawyer who is his superior, and who happens in this case to be respondent himself, and warned of dismissal from employment, a possible litigation and its dire consequences, that employee is, in effect, under threat or intimidation.

The excuse of respondent that a threat to prosecute is no intimidation deserves scant consideration. The instant complaint involves the fitness of a lawyer to continue his membership with the Philippine Bar, where he is expected to promote respect for law and legal processes. For sure, We are not here concerned with intimidation as a requisite to vitiate consent in entering into contracts, as cited by respondent to support his argument. Here, We take into serious account the fact that respondent is a lawyer, a superior who threatened a subordinate complainant with dismissal and a court suit. A man of the law should never use his legal expertise and influence in order to frighten or coerce anyone, specially the ordinary man who looks up to him for justice.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Thus, We remind respondent Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall non engage in unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. A member of the Bar must act with integrity, honesty and professional decorum. He must comport himself in a manner which will secure and preserve the respect and confidence of the public. Both his professional and personal conduct must be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. He is required not only in fact to be good moral character, but must also be seen to be leading a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. His deportment should be characterized by candor, competence and fairness. One of his duties is to maintain the high ethical standards of the legal profession. Accordingly, respondent must be censured for his failure to comply with the ethical standards required of members of the Bar as officers of the Court.

WHEREFORE, respondent, ATTY. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO, is hereby CENSURED for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be FURNISHED the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread in the personal records of Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Griño Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Complaint, par. 10, p. 2.

2. Reply, p. 3.

3. Ibid., par. 7, pp. 5-6.

4. Comment, pp. 13-15.

5. Signed by Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr., President (Chairman); Ernesto S. Salunat, Governor, Northern Luzon; Jose Aguila Grapilan, Governor, Southern Luzon Region; Baldomero C. Estenzo, Governor, Eastern Visayas Region; Toedoro D. Nano, Jr., Governor, Eastern Mindanao Region; and Didagen P. Dilangalen, Governor, Western Mindanao Region.

6. Decision, IBP, pp. 11-12.

7. Ibid., p. 13.

8. Ibid., p. 15.

9. Ibid., p. 14.

10. Ibid., p. 12.

11. Ibid., p. 17.

12. Rollo, p. 35.

13. Annex 11.

14. Annex 12.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.