ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.C. No. 4948. February 23, 2000]
ANA CECILIA G. CABATI, et al. vs. ATTY. ALFONSO R. REYNO, JR., et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 23 2000.
A.C. No. 4948. (Ana Cecilia G. Cabati, et al. vs. Atty. Alfonso R. Reyno, Jr., et al.)
This is a case for disbarment filed by complainants Ana Cecilia G. Cabati and Fernando C. Raynon (complainants) against respondents Attys. Alfonso R. Reyno, Jr., Yolanda G. Reyno, Ferdinand A. Domingo, Lemuel A. Santos, Ian Dela Vega, Peter Francis Zagala, Hon. Ralph C. Lantion and Lenito T. Serrano (respondents).
Complainant Cabati was the bookkeeper of Attys. Alfonso Reyno, Jr. and Yolanda G. Reyno (Reyno spouses) for their personal and business accounts. She was also the bookkeeper of the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo and Santos Law Offices. The Reyno spouses filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City a complaint against Cabati and her common-law husband, complainant Raynon, charging them with qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents and theft through falsification of commercial documents, respectively.1 Complaint-Affidavit filed by Attys. Alfonso Reyno, Jr. and Yolanda G. Reyno against Ana Cecilia G. Cabati and Fernando C. Raynon, Rollo, pp. 122-129. Cabati, in complicity with Reynon, allegedly forged the signature of Atty. Yolanda G. Reyno in checks which were in her custody by virtue of her position in order to withdraw large amounts of money from the personal accounts of the Reyno spouses.2 Ibid.
Subsequently, complainants filed countercharges against respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City serious illegal detention, light threats, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and carnapping. Petitioners claimed that on November 24, 1997, they were subjected by respondent Reyno, Jr. and a certain Col. Douglas Rosete to separate interrogations regarding alleged unauthorized disbursements from the accounts of the Reyno spouses. They likewise alleged that respondents acted collectively and in conspiracy in detaining them against their will at the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo and Santos Law Offices, coercing them into admitting responsibility for the aforementioned unauthorized disbursements from the Reynos' accounts, and compelling them to execute several documents conveying their real and personal properties to the Reyno spouses in restitution for the amounts which thy took from the accounts of the former.3 see Rollo, pp. 75-77; 84-89.
On September 7, 1998, petitioners also filed the instant case on the basis of the events which led to their filing of the aforementioned criminal charges against the respondents.4 Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-8.
Acting on the complaint, the Court in a Resolution dated December 2, 1998 required the respondents to file their comment on the complaint.5 Rollo, pp. 34-35.
Respondent Judge on his part declared in his Comment dated February 25, 1999 that:
x x x
2. The complaint against respondent Lantion is his being a witness in a joint Affidavit, dated November 24, 1997. The circumstances which led to respondent being a witness to the said document is narrated in his Counter Affidavit which he filed before the City Prosecutor of Pasig in I.S. No. 98-0138-41 to wit:
xxx
2.1. In the evening of 24 November 1997, I, together with my classmate, Lenito T. Serrano were at the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo & Santos Law Offices located at Strata 100 Building, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, to fetch our other classmates, Attys. Ferdinand A. Domingo and Lemuel M. Santos, as we were scheduled to go to our class reunion that evening.
2.2. While I was at the Reyno Law Office, I was informed of the news that their office's bookkeeper, Cecil Cabati, was being accused of having forged the signature of Atty. Yolanda G. Reyno and illegally withdrew large amounts of money over a certain period of time from the personal accounts of Attys. Alfonso and Yolanda Reyno.
2.3. Soon thereafter, I learned that Ms. Cabati and her common-law husband, both of whom I personally know, and to whom I am personally known, had voluntarily admitted to having caused the illegal withdrawal of the Reynos' money and had agreed to make restitution.
2.4. I was then asked by Atty. Domingo if [I] could be a witness to the signing of a Joint Affidavit of Ms. Cabati and Mr. Raynon. Before I agreed, I requested that I first read the said document and to talk personally to Ms. Cabati and Mr. Raynon. Such request were accommodated.
2.5. I then joined Cabati and Raynon, along with Atty. Alfonso Reyno, Jr. in the room of Atty. Domingo. After reading the document entitled "Joint Affidavit" (annex "H" of Reynos Memorandum in I.S. No. 97 - 19230); I asked Cabati and Raynon if they understood the said document they signed, as well as the consequence of their signing it. They responded that they did and they signed the same voluntarily.
2.6. After being satisfied of the voluntariness of the complainants in signing the Joint Affidavit, I affixed my signature upon such document as a witness.
2.7. During my whole stay in the Reyno Law Offices, I did not see, hear or participate in any act of intimidation or threat of bodily harm against the complainants. There were no "armed men" as alleged by the complainants. As a matter of fact, I affixed my signature to the aforementioned Joint Affidavit because I was convinced that the said document was entered into by the complainants voluntarily and free from any intimidation or threat.
xxx 6 Id., at 164-165.
After the respondents filed their respective comments, the Court on August 11, 1999, resolved to refer this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.7 Id., at 235.
Petitioners, however, filed an Opposition dated September 23, 1999 to the referral of the case to the IBP on the ground that the close association of respondent Atty. Reyno, Jr. with some officials of the IBP, specifically his law firm partner Atty. Leonard De Vera, IBP spokesperson, and his brother in his fraternity, Atty. Jose A. Grapilon, National President of the IBP, will influence the investigation of the IBP and deny them justice and fair play.
Complainants apprehension that the IBP may not be fair and just in conducting the investigation is grounded on pure speculation.
The IBP, through its investigating arm, the Committee on Bar Discipline,8 The Committee on Bar Discipline was created in August 1998 by the Board of Governors of the IBP to take the place of the National Grievance Investigation under Section 2, Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court. is empowered under Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court to conduct proceedings for the disbarment of an attorney upon the verified complaint of any person.9 Section 1, Rule 139-B, supra. The investigator or investigators appointed to probe complaints against lawyers are mandated to adhere to the procedure laid down by law on how to conduct such disbarment proceedings.10 See Section 2-12, Rule 139-B, supra. They are required to take their oath of office before discharging their duties.11 Section 2, Rule 139-B, supra. The grounds for their disqualification are laid down in the law, which are, in particular, relationships within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias or having acted as counsel for other party.12 Sec. 2, par. 2, Rule 139-B, supra. Just because some of the respondents belong to the same fraternity as some of the IBP officers is not a sufficient ground to brand the entire organization as biased. If the investigator shows any manifestation of partiality during the investigation, complainants can ask for his disqualification.
Considering the foregoing, there is no reason to warrant the transfer of the investigation of the case to the Court of Appeals absent any showing of actual bias and/or arbitrariness on the part of the investigator or investigators to be designated by the IBP for the purpose.
The Court now takes occasion to clarify that its referral of the case to the IBP for investigation does not include the charges against respondent Judge Lantion. Being a member of the Judiciary, it is the Supreme Court alone which has the power to discipline him. This is clear in Art. VIII. Section 11 of the Constitution which provides:
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
The matter was further clarified in Supreme Court Circular No. 3-89 dated February 9, 1999,13 Supreme Court Circular No. 3-89 is entitled "Complaints Filed with the IBP Against Justices and Judges of the Lower Courts." wherein it was explained that justices and judges are not among those who may be investigated by the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP. The phrase "attorneys in the government service" in paragraph 2 of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court was interpreted by the Court as excluding members of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals and Judges of the other courts.14 Ibid.
A careful examination of the complaint reveals that it failed to allege any specific charge against Judge Lantion. Complainants did not identify what specific or particular acts were committed by respondent Judge which would warrant his disbarment. The complaint simply contained a general charge which was sufficiently refuted by Judge Lantion. Specifically, it states:
24. Thereafter, in the evening of 24 November 1997, after Atty. Reyno, Jr. and Col. Rosete unlawfully and forcibly took the aforesaid properties and/or documents relating thereto and while the complainants were still being unlawfully detained in one of the rooms of the Law Firm of Reyno, De Vera, Tiu, Domingo & Santos, Respondents Atty. Alfonso R. Reyno, Jr., Atty. Ferdinand Domingo, Atty. Arturo Tiu, Atty. Lemuel Santos, Judge Ralph C. Lantion, Atty. Ian dela Vega, Atty. Peter Francis Zagala, Atty. Lenito Serrano. Rodolfo Reyno, Col. Douglas Rosete and his unidentified armed men acting collectively and conspiring with one another, pressured, coerced, intimidated and threatened with bodily harm, death and continued detention Complainant[s] Ana Cecilia Cabati and Fernando Raynon to sign and execute the following documents which the said respondents prepared x x x. 15 Complaint, Rollo, p. 5.
In his comment16 Rollo, pp. 163-167.16 to the complaint, respondent Judge averred that complainants' claim against him relates to his act of signing as a witness in their Joint Affidavit dated November 24, 1997.17 Comment, Rollo, p. 164. Respondent Judge explained that he and his former law classmate co-respondent Serrano dropped by the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo and Santos Law Offices in the evening of November 24, 1997 to fetch their classmate, respondents Domingo and Santos, as they were schedule to attend their class reunion that evening. It was only then that he learned that complainant Cabati who worked as bookkeeper in said law firm was being accused of forging the signature of respondent Atty. Yolanda G. Reyno and withdrawing large amounts of money from the accounts of the Reyno spouses without the latter's consent. When respondent Judge was asked if he could be a witness to the signing by complainants of their Joint Affidavit, he asked if he could read said document and talk to them before signing as witness. Judge Lantion claimed that he signed as such witness only after reading the document and after confirming from the complainants themselves that they executed said document voluntarily and that they understood the consequences o their execution thereof.18 Ibid.
Respondent Judge added that he neither witnessed nor participated in any act of intimidation or threat of bodily harm against complainants while he was inside the Reyno Law Offices on November 24, 1997.19 Id., at 165.
After a careful study of the complainants' allegations against Judge Lantion and the latter's response thereto, the Court finds no real and sufficient basis for the charges imputed by complainants upon him. There is nothing unlawful, immoral nor improper in respondent Judge Lantion's act of signing as witness the Joint Affidavit of petitioners given the circumstances surrounding it.
WHEREFORE, the complainants' opposition to the referral of this case to the IBP for investigation , report and recommendation or decision and their request that the same be referred to the Court of Appeals instead are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
The complaint against respondent Judge Lantion is hereby DISMISSED. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to Judge Lantio's personal record.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
