This is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, against respondent Judge Ferdinand A. Fe, both as a member of the bar and bench, and respondent Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz as a member of the bar, for dishonesty, serious misconduct prejudicial to the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary under Section 27, Rule 138 and Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court relative to the latter's actuations in the handling of Civil Case No. 1081-BG entitled, Yolanda M. Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al. and Civil Case No. 1518-BG entitled, Yolanda Marquez Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al.

Complainant implies that not only did the respondent lawyer had free access to the records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG through the help of respondent Judge, he was also given the liberty to copy what perhaps would help him in his quest to win the case.

Invoking the principle of res ipsa loquitor, complainant objects to the fact that Civil Case No. 1518-BG was raffled to the respondent Judge, who was the former counsel of the plaintiff therein in Civil Case No. 1081-BG. Another reason for his objection is that, allegedly, some paragraphs in the complaint in Civil Case No. 1518-BG were obviously copied from Civil Case No. 1081-BG wherein the complaint was prepared by respondent Judge in his capacity as then lawyer of herein complainant (plaintiff therein). Complainant claims that the foregoing constitute misconduct which imply malice or wrongful intent, not just mere errors of judgment. He insists that the fact that respondent Judge will try the case upon a complaint in which the plaintiff was his former client and which complaint was copied from the complaint he himself prepared does not speak well of his intention as to the disposition of the case.

Complainant maintains that the act of respondent Judge in allowing the respondent lawyer to copy the complaint in Civil Case No. 1081-BG and to present it to court as the latter's work does violence to Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. Complainant also asserts that in placing his signature in the complaint not written by him, respondent lawyer committed deceit, which serves as a ground for his disbarment.

In a Resolution dated 28 September 2005, the Second Division of this Court referred the instant administrative case to Court of Appeals Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt thereof.

Pursuant thereto, Justice Salonga set the case for hearing on 13 December 2005, and directed the complainant and the respondents, and their witnesses, if any, to appear before her and to submit documents relevant to the complaint.

During the scheduled hearing, the complainant and the respondent Judge, after the marking and offering of their respective documentary evidence, manifested that they would not be adducing any further evidence. Upon their motion, they were given a period of thirty (30) days within which to simultaneously file their Memoranda, after which the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.

On 13 December 2005, complainant filed his Memorandum. The respondent judge, on the other hand, filed his Memorandum on 18 January 2006 while the respondent lawyer filed his Memorandum on 20 January 2006.

In her report, Justice Salonga summarized the facts as follows:

In October 1992, Salud Andrada Marquez ("Marquez") mortgaged six (6) parcels of land to the Rural Bank of Luna, La Union, Inc., one of which is a parcel of land with an area of Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine Square Meters (22,599 sq. meters) located at Calumbaya, Bauang, La Union covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FP-15344 under a Free Patent granted on 5 July 1989.

Failing to pay her debt, the bank foreclosed the mortgage. On 2 August 1993, the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction the highest bidder of which was the petitioner. Consequently, OCT No. FP-15344 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-40223 was issued in the name of the petitioner.

In the meantime, petitioner, through his attorneys-in-fact Antonio O. Prieto and Monette O. Prieto, mortgaged the aforesaid properties to Far East Bank and Trust Company.

Seeking the nullification of the mortgaged and the consequent transfer of the mortgaged properties in the name of the petitioner, Roque, Marquez' daughter, filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 1081-BG with the RTC Branch 67, for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts with Damages against said petitioner, the Rural Bank of Luna, La Union, Inc. and Far East Bank and Trust Company. Respondent judge, then a practicing lawyer, was retained by Roque as her counsel of record in said case and was the one who drafted said complaint.

On 18 August 2000, the RTC Branch 67, through then Presiding Judge Jose G. Pineda, issued an order dismissing the case on the ground that Roque was not a real party in interest since her right of action has still to ripen upon the death of her mother.

On 8 November 2001, respondent judge was appointed as the presiding judge of RTC Branch 67. By reason of his appointment, he completely severed all his professional relationships with his clients, including Roque, and turned over or relinquished all case records of his office to said clients.

Upon the demise of Marquez on 9 August 2002, Roque, who had now acquired by way of succession her mother's right of action to pursue the annulment of contracts executed over the property formerly covered by OCT No. 15344, engaged the legal services of respondent lawyer.

Thus, on 5 January 2004, respondent lawyer, as Roque's counsel, filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Reconveyance of Property, and Damages against petitioner, his attorneys-in-fact Antonio O. Prieto and Monette O. Prieto, the Rural Bank of Luna, La Union, Inc. and Far East Bank and Trust Company, Inc., now merged with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, before the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union.

On 7 January 2004, the case, docketed as Civil Case No. 1518-BG, was raffled to the respondent judge. On 8 January 2004, RTC Branch 67, through Atty. Jeovannie C. Ordoño, its Branch Clerk of Court, issued summons to the defendants. The summons and copy of the complaint was duly served upon the petitioner on 20 January 2004.

Going over the individual case folders of the newly raffled cases to his court, respondent judge came across Civil Case No. 1518-BG and discovered that the plaintiff therein was Roque, his former client. Immediately, without going over the allegations of the complaint, the respondent judge issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case and ordered that the record of said case be transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33 ("RTC Branch 33").

On 27 January 2004, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 67 transmitted the entire record of Civil Case No. 1518-BG to RTC Branch 33 through its Clerk of Court, Atty. Richard T. Domingo, which was duly received by the latter.

On 30 January 2004, petitioner separately filed with the RTC Branch 67, an Objection to Competency and his Answer to the Complaint. Since the records thereof were already transmitted to RTC Branch 33, RTC Branch 67's Branch Clerk of Court had said pleadings forwarded thereto. Since then, the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG have been conducted by RTC Branch 33.

In an Order dated 22 April 2004, after the parties therein filed their Answers and the issues having been joined, Presiding Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim of RTC Branch 33 set the case for pre-trial conference and ordered the submission of the parties' respective pre-trial briefs.

On 24 May 2004, petitioner filed with the RTC Branch 33 an Amended Answer together with the Authority given by his co-defendants Antonio O. Prieto and Monette O. Prieto, in his favor to appear for and in their behalf, and their Pre-Trial Brief.

In a Resolution dated 28 September 2005, the Second Division of the Supreme Court referred the instant administrative case to the undersigned for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt thereof. A copy of the said Resolution was received by the undersigned on 18 November 2005.

Pursuant thereto, in an Order promulgated on 21 November 2005, the undersigned set the case for hearing on 13 December 2005 directing the petitioner and the respondents, and their witnesses, if any, to appear before her and to submit documents relevant to the complaint.

During the scheduled hearing, the petitioner and the respondent judge, after the marking and offering of their respective documentary evidence, manifested that they will not be adducing any further evidence. Upon their motion, they were given a period thirty (30) days within which to simultaneously file their Memoranda, after which the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.

On 13 December 2005, petitioner filed his Memorandum. The respondent judge, on the other hand, filed his Memorandum on 18 January 2006 while the respondent lawyer filed his Memorandum on 20 January 2006.

In her report, Justice Salonga recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondents, and that complainant be admonished for filing the frivolous complaint.

A reading of the records of this case clearly shows that the present administrative case is unfounded, as it is devoid of factual and legal basis. Stripped of all its verbosity, petitioner's allegations in support of his complaint against the respondents should be treated for what they really are, mere allegations founded on speculation and conjecture. In this connection, it must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondents committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. Failing in this, the complaint must be dismissed.

First off, the allegation of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent lawyer, through the intervention and assistance of the respondent judge, had free access to the court records Civil Case No. 1081-BG fails to find evidentiary support. Without more, petitioner deduced that the court records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG were made available to the respondent lawyer at the instance of the respondent judge simply because relevant and substantial portions of the complaint filed by the latter were re-written and adopted in Civil Case No. 1518-BG. Bare and conclusory as it is, the said allegation deserves scant consideration.

Emphatically, the mere fact that respondent lawyer had adopted relevant and substantial portions of the complaint filed by the respondent judge does not in any way bespeak of any illegal or unethical practice on his part.

For one, the respondent lawyer could have easily read and gained access to the case record of Civil Case No. 1081-BG. As can be gleaned from the records, respondent judge had already turned over and relinquished his case records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG to Roque after his appointment to the bench on 8 November 2001. Since she intended to re-file the case against petitioner, it is expected, if not necessary, for Roque to give the records of the previously dismissed complaint to her newly retained counsel. What is more apparent is the right of Roque and the respondent lawyer, as her retained counsel, to request access to the court records for their reproduction or certification.

For another, a perusal of the complaints separately and successively filed by the respondent judge and the respondent lawyer belies petitioner's claim that the latter merely copied, verbatim or otherwise, the original complaint. True, some allegations contained therein were substantially retained by respondent lawyer. However, these allegations are essential and crucial to the cause of action of Roque against the petitioner. Aside from the fact that there is hardly a number of ways to construct a sentence, petitioner cannot plausibly claim that respondent lawyer is legally restrained from retaining or rewriting sentences earlier constructed by the respondent judge.

More importantly, petitioner's assertion that respondent judge allowed the respondent lawyer to copy the complaint in Civil Case No. 1081-BG is unfounded. Aside from the petitioner's mere say so, there is not even an iota of evidence to support this assertion. It is all too obvious that there is a dearth of evidence that would in any way prove petitioner's accusation against the respondents.

In the same vein, petitioner's inference that respondent judge intended to try Civil Case No. 1518-BG is a blatant fabrication. The records of the case refute this. Reading his petition, it is evident that petitioner cunningly attempted to mislead this court to believe that respondent judge is still conducting the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG and had refused to inhibit himself therefrom. His intent to deceive this court to achieve his end to vex and harass the respondents is undeniable.

As asserted by the respondent judge, petitioner cannot feign ignorance in this regard. He is well aware that the respondent judge already issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case and ordering the transmission of the record of said case to the RTC Branch 33. In fact, petitioner has been actively participating in the proceedings of said case before the RTC Branch 33 prior to the institution of the instant administrative case as he had already filed several pleadings therewith.

If truth be told, the allegations in the instant petition was ingeniously written to deliberately and maliciously withhold and suppress the fact that the respondent judge had already inhibited himself from taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 1518-BG and that the records thereof had in fact been transmitted to RTC Branch 33.

All told, it cannot be gainsaid that the instant administrative case in itself is frivolous, calculated merely to harass, annoy, and cast groundless suspicions on the integrity and reputation of both the respondents. The only piece of evidence that the petitioner has offered in support of his claim is his bare assertions, which certainly deserves scant consideration. It must be emphasized that a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to support the charge. This brings to the fore the application of the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations.

Counter-Petition Against the Petitioner

Adopting the above-findings made in the petition against the respondents, there is merit in the separate counter-petitions filed by the latter to hold the petitioner administratively liable for filing an unfounded and frivolous suit.

As already stated, petitioner's allegations in support of his complaint against the respondents are baseless, as they are mere allegations founded on pure speculation and conjecture. Sans evidence, his petition was purposely written to mislead the Court and cast a doubt on the integrity and dignity of the respondents. Petitioner made the said administrative case as a vehicle to unduly harass or otherwise prejudice the respondents. Worse, in selfishly satisfying his own desire to vex the respondents, he had tarnished the integrity of the entire judiciary and the bar.

For this reason, the petitioner should be cited in contempt, as what the Supreme Court had pronounced in the recent case of Galman Cruz vs. Aliño-Hormachuelos. Said the Court:

"Verily, this Court is once again called upon to reiterate that, although the Court will never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the peoples' faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.

The eloquent words of the late Justice Conrado V. Sanchez in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer are enlightening:

By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become commonplace. Really, there could hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: 'To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.' As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Court a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." That same canon, as corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against "unjust criticism and clamor." And more, the attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity...to the courts." Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts "can only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold."

We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And, he may suffer frustration at what he feels is other's lack of it. That is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. He should give due allowance to the fact that judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility.

In Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, Justice Sanchez further elucidated:

A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is. "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice." Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "as an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice."

Petitioner's unfounded imputations against respondents are malicious and offend the dignity of the entire judiciary. Scandalous as his bare allegations are, the fact that petitioner maliciously insinuated that the respondent judge allowed access to and assisted the respondent lawyer in the filing of his complaint desecrates and mocks the integrity of the judiciary. Equally insolent is petitioner's baseless postulations that the respondent judge refused to inhibit himself from Civil Case No. 1518-BG purposely to give leverage to his former client and her lawyer.

Moreover, in filing a frivolous suit against his opposing counsel, petitioner violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that "all lawyers must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues and should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel" and commands all lawyers "to observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice."

We have reviewed the records, and after careful consideration thereof, we find the conclusions of fact and the recommendations of the Investigator in the above-quoted report to be well-taken and fully supported by the evidence on record, except for the penalty imposed on complainant.

Atty. Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, however, this right must be exercised in good faith.^[1]

As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.

A lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.^[2]
Canon 12^[3] of the Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated on 21 June 1988 is very explicit that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust.^[4] Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.^[5] We cannot countenance complainant's act of misleading this Court into believing that respondent judge was still conducting the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG. What is evident is that even complainant was well aware of respondent judge's inhibition therefrom. The respondent judge, in fact, issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case.

In Retuya v. Gorduiz,^[6] respondent-lawyer was suspended for six (6) months for filing a groundless suit against a former client in order to harass and embarrass her. In the case of Arnaldo v. Suarin,^[7] complainant Atty. Arnaldo was fined P5,000.00 for filing frivolous complaint. In this case, which we find analogous to Arnaldo, we hold that a fine of P5,000.00 will suffice.

ACCORDINGLY, the above-quoted report of Justice Salonga is APPROVED with modification as to the penalty imposed on complainant Atty. Marcos V. Prieto. Respondents Judge Ferdinand A. Fe and Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz are exonerated and the administrative complaint against them is DISMISSED. Complainant Atty. Marcos V. Prieto is FINED P5,000.00 for filing frivolous suit with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, C.J., (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Duduaco v. Judge Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601, 11 August 2005, 466 SCRA 428.

^[2] Agpalo, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, p. 117 (2004 Ed.).

^[3] A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

^[4] People v. Santocildes, Jr., G.R. No. 109149, 21 December 1999, 321 SCRA 310, 316.

^[5] Re: Administration Case Against Atty. Occeña, 433 Phil. 138, 156 (2002).

^[6] Adm. Case No. 1388, 28 March 1980, 96 SCRA 526, 529-530.

^[7] A.M. No. P-05-2059, 19 August 2005, 467 SCRA 402, 409.