ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 5167. June 21, 2000]

MAXIMO CRUZ vs. ATTY. RENI M. DUBLIN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21 2000.

A.C. No. 5167 (Maximo Cruz vs. Atty. Reni M. Dublin.)

This is a complaint for disbarment by Maximo Cruz against Atty. Reni M. Dublin. It is alleged that at a meeting, held on August 8, 1999, of complainant Maximo Cruz and his co-employees, respondent told the group that "in order for the Supreme Court to release a resolution or decision favorable to the 1,407 illegally terminated workers we must sign among ourselves signifying that all of us shall agree to give generously at least ten (10) percent commission to the three (3) justices assigned at First Division of the Supreme Court."

Respondent denies the charge against him. He states:

The records in that informal meeting will show that respondent did not solicit certain percentage from complainants' monetary awards to be given to the justices of the First Division. Logic negates this to be an impossibility: first, as a lawyer, respondent will only be courting the ire of the Honorable Justices of the First Division that may result to his incarceration in jail for being contemptuous. It can also lead to his disbarment and dismembership from the Philippine Bar; second, while there is no rule authorizing follow-ups by counsels of litigants in cases pending before the Supreme Court, such practice is frowned upon even as early as the time of Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan. Follow-ups of cases therefore before the Supreme Court is a complete NO; third, respondent, being a provincial lawyer, do not even know the Honorable Justices comprising the First Division of the Honorable Supreme Court, although respondent can tell that there is a constant and regular rotation of the Honorable Members of the Division from time to time; fourth, the case is pending before the highest tribunal of the land. A follow-up will project the image that the Honorable Court is not acting on the cases before it.

Also discussed was respondent's explanation of impossibly following up cases before the Honorable Court with sure results. The mention of the percentage was made to discredit the claims of [Edmund] Jumawan who brags that whenever he is in Manila, he never failed to have dinner with Chief Justic Narvasa who arranged such percentage division. (His incredible stories are usually corroborated by his protegee Adela de Lara) Thus, to illustrate the impossibility of the percentage being asked by Jumauwan, I used as illustration the perceived sharing of TEN (10%) percent for the three (3) justices of the First Division. Respondent is not even sure that the First Division is composed of three (3) Honorable Justices, but on the assumption that there is no truth to the claims of Jumawan that ten (10%) percent is intended for them is again impossibility for no one even know who these Honorable Justices are and who is the Honorable Justice handling the case of complainants. In other words, how can Jumawan know the sharing and percentage by fixing it at ten (10%) percent when the number of Honorable Justices in the First Division is not even known and the composition changes from time to time. Respondent however admit that he encourages his clients, the complainants in the said labor case, to personally make the follow-ups themselves as shown by the numerous letters privately sent by some of the individual complainants in G.R. No. 120009.

Respondent can only conclude that complainant Maximo Cruz may not have totally understood the explanation by respondent in that meeting and, worse, misinterpreted the message that respondent was trying to deliver. His failure to understand is apparent even to his observation that respondent do not appear to be convincing as alleged in his complaint.

Complainant subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging that he is withdrawing his complaint for disbarment against respondent because he realized that respondent has served him well as his counsel and that he is no longer interested in prosecuting said case.

Otherwise, complainant Maximo Cruz does not retract his accusation that his counsel asked them for money to be given to three members of the First Division of this Court for a favorable decision. Considering the aspersion cast upon the Court and its members by the charge made by complainant, the latter should be made to account.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 71, ��3-4, of the Rules of Civil Procedure, complainant Maximo Cruz is required, within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for having made allegations directly or indirectly casting aspersion on the integrity of the Court and of its members. Respondent Dublin's Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment, Motion to Admit Aforesaid Comment, and Comment are all NOTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE