View full case

LIANG FUJI v. ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

The administrative complaint filed by Liang Fuji and his family is against Bureau of Immigration Special Prosecutor Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The complainants furnished the court with copies of the Verified Petition to reopen S.D. O. No. BOC-2015-357 and Administrative Complaint, which Fuji filed with the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration. The complaint alleges that Fuji's Section 9(g) visa was valid until April 30, 2016, but Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz issued a Charge Sheet against him for overstaying. On June 29, 2015, Fuji filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but on July 28, 2015, he was served with a Warrant of Deportation and was arrested and detained. On March 22, 2016, the Board of Commissioners dismissed the deportation charge against Fuji, directing his release on March 23, 2016. Fuji alleged that his rights to due process were violated and Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz failed to properly review the immigration records before bringing charges against him. Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz denies any grave misconduct and claims that Fuji was accorded due process during the summary deportation proceedings. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complainant's charges against Dela Cruz, and Fuji later filed an Affidavit of Desistance.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Affidavit of Desistance by the complainant is a sufficient ground to dismiss the administrative complaint.

  2. Whether the complainant's overstaying was duly proven and supported by evidence.

  3. Whether Atty. Dela Cruz's negligence in her review of the documents transmitted to her by the BI-MIS constitutes a violation of her responsibilities as a lawyer and member of the Bar.

  4. Whether Atty. Dela Cruz's neglect of duty in handling the case of Fuji warrants disciplinary action.

RULING:

  1. The Affidavit of Desistance is not sufficient cause to dismiss the administrative complaint. Disciplinary proceedings cannot be terminated by desistance or withdrawal of charges. The primary objective of such proceedings is to determine the fitness of a member to remain in the Bar, and it is conducted solely for the public welfare. The desistance of the complainant is irrelevant, and the decisive factor is the evidence presented.

  2. The evidence presented by the respondent, such as the Memorandum and attached documents from the Bureau of Immigration-MIS, does not sufficiently prove that the complainant overstayed. The Memorandum only transmitted copies of immigration records showing details of applications and travel records. It was the respondent who made the determination of overstaying based on these documents. However, the respondent failed to verify whether the application for change of status had been approved by the Bureau of Immigration Commissioners. This failure constitutes a breach of the respondent's duty.

  3. Atty. Dela Cruz's negligence in her review of the documents transmitted to her by the BI-MIS does constitute a violation of her responsibilities as a lawyer and member of the Bar. Her failure to thoroughly review the documents and inquire further resulted in the deprivation of liberty of Fuji, which goes against the fundamental right to due process. Atty. Dela Cruz's negligence demonstrates her indifference to the consequences of her actions, which is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Atty. Dela Cruz's neglect of duty in handling the case of Fuji warrants disciplinary action. As a special prosecutor in the Bureau of Immigration, her role was to investigate and verify facts to determine whether a ground for deportation exists and to take further administrative action as necessary. However, her negligence in reviewing the records of Fuji led to his wrongful deprivation of liberty for almost eight months. As a government lawyer, Atty. Dela Cruz is held to a higher standard of ethics and professionalism. Her negligence in this case shows a failure to meet these standards.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disciplinary proceedings cannot be terminated by desistance or withdrawal of charges, as they are conducted solely for the public welfare.

  • The primary objective of disciplinary proceedings is to determine the fitness of a member to remain in the Bar.

  • Special prosecutors should exercise vigilance and attention in reviewing immigration records when the legal status and documentation of an alien are at issue.

  • The burden of proof lies with the respondent to prove the allegations in the administrative complaint.

  • A deportation proceeding is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person.

  • Lawyers in government service have the added duty to abide by the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics, competence, and professionalism in public service.

  • Neglect of duty by a lawyer, whether in government service or not, renders the lawyer liable and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers who hold a government office may be subject to disciplinary sanction by the Court if their misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of their oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility.