February 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 6046 : February 13, 2007] ATTY. FLORENCIO VILLARIN V. ATTY. BERNARDITO FLORIDO :
[A.C. No. 6046 : February 13, 2007]
ATTY. FLORENCIO VILLARIN V. ATTY. BERNARDITO FLORIDO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 February 2007:
A.C. No. 6046 - (ATTY. FLORENCIO VILLARIN v. ATTY. BERNARDITO FLORIDO)
Atty. Florencio Villarin (complainant) charges Atty. Bernardito Florido (respondent) with violation of a lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Ethics arising from respondent's submission before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu of an alleged falsified Commission on Elections (COMELEC) firearms ban exemption permit.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On June 19, 2002, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents confiscated a firearm owned by Guerrero Dajao (Dajao), respondent's client. On even date, respondent, on behalf of Dajao, wrote the NBI stating as follows:
Dajao was later charged before the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office with violation of the COMELEC firearms and other deadly weapons ban during the election period for barangay chairmen and SK representatives in July 2002.
In compliance with the order of the City Prosecutor's Office, respondent submitted Dajao's Counter-Affidavit to which he attached as Annex "C" a photocopy of "Firearms & Other Deadly Weapons Ban Exemption"[2] Permit No. 1896 with reference No. A-0607-00111 issued on June 6, 2002, and also a photocopy of the permit's Annex "49"[3] listing Dajao as one of those exempted from the firearms ban. The photocopy of Permit No. 1896 bore the signature of COMELEC Commissioner P. Ralph C. Lantion, Chairman, Committee on Firearms/Security Personnel, as well as Major Saturnino Obsioma PA, Group Commander who therein certified and authenticated the photocopy as "a true copy from the Original." The photocopy of Annex "49," which bore the signature of Atty. Leonard B. Mann, Executive Assistant V to Commissioner Lantion, had the following notation: "FAITHFUL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL, Date: June 07, 2002, Julius P. Agdeppa, P2LT JAGS, ISAFP."[4]
The Committee on Firearms and Security Personnel of the COMELEC, through Jose Balbuena Sr., Director IV, Law Department and Vice Chairman of the Committee, however, issued a Certification[5] dated July 26, 2002 reading:
Complainant alleges that respondent had knowledge that Permit No. 1896 and its Annex "49" were "spurious" as he, in his letter to the NBI, categorically stated that "Dajao did not carry said firearm because of the election ban" which statement is, to complainant, a clear admission that respondent knew that Dajao did not have any permit exempting him from the gun ban.
Complainant further alleges that despite the above-stated July 26, 2002 Certification of the COMELEC, respondent insisted in the Rejoinders dated July 31, 2002, August 1, 2002 and August 6, 2002 which he filed for Dajao before the City Prosecutor's Office that the assailed documents were genuine.[6]
Complainant subsequently filed criminal complaints against respondent and Dajao with the City Prosecutor's Office for falsification of public documents, perjury and obstruction of justice.[7]
In his Comment to the present complaint, respondent, denying the charges against him, claims that its filing was motivated by complainant's "misplaced spite and anger" against him simply because he is the counsel of Dajao in several civil and criminal cases filed by complainant against Dajao.[8]
On the questioned photocopies of Permit No. 1896 and its Annex "49," respondent claims that on receiving them on or about July 11, 2002, he submitted them to the City Prosecutor's Office in the same condition as he received them; and the documents are genuine as Dajao swore to their genuineness, and if they are spurious, he (respondent) had absolutely no knowledge thereof.[9] Respondent adds, however, that when he confronted Dajao about the questioned documents, he insisted that they are genuine.[10]
On complainant's claim that respondent did not present to the NBI any permit exempting Dajao from the firearms ban because there was none such, respondent explains that Dajao received a copy of the certificate of exemption dated June 6, 2002 only after he sent his June 19, 2002 letter to the NBI or on or about July 11, 2002."[11]
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[12]
The issues raised before the IBP were whether (1) Permit No. 1896 (the permit), which was attached to Dajao's Counter-Affidavit, was falsified, and (2) respondent knew that the permit was falsified.
By Report and Recommendation[13] dated June 2, 2005, Investigating Commissioner Elpidio Soriano III, without passing on the first issue, but granting that the permit was falsified, found that respondent lacked knowledge of its "falsity" and accordingly, recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
Investigating Commissioner Soriano's Report and Recommendation were, by Resolution No. XVI-2005-225 dated June 25, 2005, approved by the IBP Board of Governors.[14]
Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said IBP Resolution which was, by Resolution of December 17, 2005, denied on the ground that it had "no more jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed to the Honorable Supreme Court (Section 1(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court),"[15] the records of the case having been forwarded, by letter of July 4, 2005, to this Court which received them on August 4, 2005.[16]
Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration is thus the subject of the present Resolution.
Complainant questions the IBP Resolution, to wit:
It appears that complainant's claim that the permit was falsified and that respondent knew about it stemmed from the latter's statement in his letter to the NBI that "Dajao did not carry the said firearm because of the election ban." Complainant contends that by such statement, respondent "virtually admit[ed] that Mr. Dajao did not have a permit exempting him from the gun ban."
In another vein, complainant posits that "respondent must have read [the permit] before he submitted it to the City Prosecutor . . . and from what he read, he knew that said permit was issued to the AFP and the exemption was valid only for 2,648 military personnel [of which Dajao was not, he being a "plain civilian"] while they are in the performance of their duties as explicitly stated therein."[20]
Finally, complainant contends that the photocopy of the permit, without the authentication of genuineness by an authorized officer, "conclusively proves" that respondent knew about its falsity.[21]
The determination of whether the permit is falsified is a factual issue, however, which is not within the domain of this Court to resolve. It bears noting that, as complainant himself informs, the criminal complaint for falsification against respondent, along with Dajao, is still pending preliminary investigation, not to mention the fact that the criminal case filed against Dajao for violation of the firearms and other deadly weapons ban appears to be still pending too. Consideration of the issue of whether respondent had knowledge of the "falsity" of the permit assumes that it is spurious. Since its "falsity" has not been factually determined, faulting respondent for knowledge of the "falsity" does not lie.
WHEREFORE, complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Resolution dismissing petitioner's complaint against Atty. Bernardito Florido is, in light of the foregoing discussion, DENIED.
A.C. No. 6046 - (ATTY. FLORENCIO VILLARIN v. ATTY. BERNARDITO FLORIDO)
Atty. Florencio Villarin (complainant) charges Atty. Bernardito Florido (respondent) with violation of a lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Ethics arising from respondent's submission before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu of an alleged falsified Commission on Elections (COMELEC) firearms ban exemption permit.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On June 19, 2002, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents confiscated a firearm owned by Guerrero Dajao (Dajao), respondent's client. On even date, respondent, on behalf of Dajao, wrote the NBI stating as follows:
This morning, the licensed firearm of Mr. Guerrero G. Dajao which was left by him in his rented house with address at Capitol Site, Cebu City, was confiscated by your agents.While, as indicated in his above-quoted letter to the NBI, respondent stated that he was attaching copies of "permit to carry and firearm license card," no such copies were attached.
The said firearm which is Caliber 45 pistol, with Serial No. RK-9544 is duly licensed in the name of Guerrero G. Dajao.
It is also covered with permit to carry. Copies of said permit to carry and firearm license card are hereto attached for your ready reference.
Mr. Dajao did not carry the said firearm because of the election ban.
This is to most respectfully request your office to release the said firearm to Mr. Guerrero Dajao and likewise to release his grandson, Tata Tacang, who is presently detained in your office.[1] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Dajao was later charged before the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office with violation of the COMELEC firearms and other deadly weapons ban during the election period for barangay chairmen and SK representatives in July 2002.
In compliance with the order of the City Prosecutor's Office, respondent submitted Dajao's Counter-Affidavit to which he attached as Annex "C" a photocopy of "Firearms & Other Deadly Weapons Ban Exemption"[2] Permit No. 1896 with reference No. A-0607-00111 issued on June 6, 2002, and also a photocopy of the permit's Annex "49"[3] listing Dajao as one of those exempted from the firearms ban. The photocopy of Permit No. 1896 bore the signature of COMELEC Commissioner P. Ralph C. Lantion, Chairman, Committee on Firearms/Security Personnel, as well as Major Saturnino Obsioma PA, Group Commander who therein certified and authenticated the photocopy as "a true copy from the Original." The photocopy of Annex "49," which bore the signature of Atty. Leonard B. Mann, Executive Assistant V to Commissioner Lantion, had the following notation: "FAITHFUL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL, Date: June 07, 2002, Julius P. Agdeppa, P2LT JAGS, ISAFP."[4]
The Committee on Firearms and Security Personnel of the COMELEC, through Jose Balbuena Sr., Director IV, Law Department and Vice Chairman of the Committee, however, issued a Certification[5] dated July 26, 2002 reading:
This is to certify that as per records of the Committee on Firearms and Security Personnel for the July 15, 2002 synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, no permit to carry firearm/s and/or other deadly weapon/s ban exemption has been granted to GUERRERO G; DAJAO, SR. A photocopy of Annex 49 of Permit No. 1896 with reference no. A-0607-00111 issued on June 6, 2002 was presented by CA Guerrero G. Dajao, Sr. where his name appears therein. However, per records of the Committee on Firearms and Security Personnel, the said photocopy [of Annex "49"] does not appear to be a faithful reproduction of the original. A certified true copy of the original Annex 49 is hereby attached.Hence, the filing of the present administrative complaint against respondent.
This certification is issued upon the written request dated July 26, 2002 of Atty. Florencio O. Villarin. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Complainant alleges that respondent had knowledge that Permit No. 1896 and its Annex "49" were "spurious" as he, in his letter to the NBI, categorically stated that "Dajao did not carry said firearm because of the election ban" which statement is, to complainant, a clear admission that respondent knew that Dajao did not have any permit exempting him from the gun ban.
Complainant further alleges that despite the above-stated July 26, 2002 Certification of the COMELEC, respondent insisted in the Rejoinders dated July 31, 2002, August 1, 2002 and August 6, 2002 which he filed for Dajao before the City Prosecutor's Office that the assailed documents were genuine.[6]
Complainant subsequently filed criminal complaints against respondent and Dajao with the City Prosecutor's Office for falsification of public documents, perjury and obstruction of justice.[7]
In his Comment to the present complaint, respondent, denying the charges against him, claims that its filing was motivated by complainant's "misplaced spite and anger" against him simply because he is the counsel of Dajao in several civil and criminal cases filed by complainant against Dajao.[8]
On the questioned photocopies of Permit No. 1896 and its Annex "49," respondent claims that on receiving them on or about July 11, 2002, he submitted them to the City Prosecutor's Office in the same condition as he received them; and the documents are genuine as Dajao swore to their genuineness, and if they are spurious, he (respondent) had absolutely no knowledge thereof.[9] Respondent adds, however, that when he confronted Dajao about the questioned documents, he insisted that they are genuine.[10]
On complainant's claim that respondent did not present to the NBI any permit exempting Dajao from the firearms ban because there was none such, respondent explains that Dajao received a copy of the certificate of exemption dated June 6, 2002 only after he sent his June 19, 2002 letter to the NBI or on or about July 11, 2002."[11]
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[12]
The issues raised before the IBP were whether (1) Permit No. 1896 (the permit), which was attached to Dajao's Counter-Affidavit, was falsified, and (2) respondent knew that the permit was falsified.
By Report and Recommendation[13] dated June 2, 2005, Investigating Commissioner Elpidio Soriano III, without passing on the first issue, but granting that the permit was falsified, found that respondent lacked knowledge of its "falsity" and accordingly, recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
Investigating Commissioner Soriano's Report and Recommendation were, by Resolution No. XVI-2005-225 dated June 25, 2005, approved by the IBP Board of Governors.[14]
Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said IBP Resolution which was, by Resolution of December 17, 2005, denied on the ground that it had "no more jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed to the Honorable Supreme Court (Section 1(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court),"[15] the records of the case having been forwarded, by letter of July 4, 2005, to this Court which received them on August 4, 2005.[16]
Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration is thus the subject of the present Resolution.
Complainant questions the IBP Resolution, to wit:
1) THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN DISMISSING THIS CASE BASED MAINLY ON THE ERRONEOUS FINDING OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER THAT "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT RESPONDENT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FABRICATION OF ANNEX "D" OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF HIS CLIENTIn administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the charge against the respondent by substantial evidence[18] - that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[19]
2) THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERRED IN FINDING THAT "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FABRICATION OF ANNEX "D" OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF HIS CLIENT.
3) THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ALSO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE THEORY OF THE COMPLAINANT THAT RESPONDENT KNEW HIS CLIENT DID NOT HAVE ANY COMELEC GUN BAN EXEMPTION BECAUSE HE STATED IN HIS LETTER THAT HIS CLIENT DID NOT CARRY HIS FIREARM BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION BAN IS SELF-SERVING INTERPRETATION FOUNDED ON MERE CONJECTURES.
4) THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER FURTHER ERRED IN RULING THAT "A PAINSTAKING REVIEW OF THE RECORDS OF THIS CASE REVEALS NOTHING OF RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY OF ANNEX "D."[17]
It appears that complainant's claim that the permit was falsified and that respondent knew about it stemmed from the latter's statement in his letter to the NBI that "Dajao did not carry the said firearm because of the election ban." Complainant contends that by such statement, respondent "virtually admit[ed] that Mr. Dajao did not have a permit exempting him from the gun ban."
In another vein, complainant posits that "respondent must have read [the permit] before he submitted it to the City Prosecutor . . . and from what he read, he knew that said permit was issued to the AFP and the exemption was valid only for 2,648 military personnel [of which Dajao was not, he being a "plain civilian"] while they are in the performance of their duties as explicitly stated therein."[20]
Finally, complainant contends that the photocopy of the permit, without the authentication of genuineness by an authorized officer, "conclusively proves" that respondent knew about its falsity.[21]
The determination of whether the permit is falsified is a factual issue, however, which is not within the domain of this Court to resolve. It bears noting that, as complainant himself informs, the criminal complaint for falsification against respondent, along with Dajao, is still pending preliminary investigation, not to mention the fact that the criminal case filed against Dajao for violation of the firearms and other deadly weapons ban appears to be still pending too. Consideration of the issue of whether respondent had knowledge of the "falsity" of the permit assumes that it is spurious. Since its "falsity" has not been factually determined, faulting respondent for knowledge of the "falsity" does not lie.
WHEREFORE, complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Resolution dismissing petitioner's complaint against Atty. Bernardito Florido is, in light of the foregoing discussion, DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 20.
[2] Id. at 24.
[3] Id. at 25.
[4] Id. at 25.
[5] Id. at 67-68.
[6] Id. at 4-5.
[7] Id. at 7.
[8] Id. at 116.
[9] Id. at 120.
[10] Id. at 120-121.
[11] Id. at 122.
[12] Id. at 170.
[13] Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 139-145.
[14] Id. at 138.
[15] Id. at 147.
[16] Id. at 137.
[17] Id. at 150-154.
[18] Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, September 9, 2005, 469 SCRA 439, 458. Uytengsu III v. Baduel, Adm. Case No. 5134, December 14, 2005, 477 SCRA 621, 630.
[19] RULES OF COURT, RULE 133, Section 5.
[20] Rollo, Vol. III, p. 156.
[21] Ibid.
