EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020 ]ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II v. ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ +
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,* RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II v. ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ +
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,* RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
For the Court's resolution are two (2) administrative cases for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz (respondent), namely: (a) A.C. No. 7253 filed by complainant Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II (Atty. Nava II) for respondent's acts of allegedly willfully and viciously maligning, insulting, and scorning him and his father, in a case; and (b) A.M No. MTJ-08-1717 where the Court dismissed her from the service as a judge, and thereafter, directed her to show cause why she should not be disbarred for the same acts which caused her dismissal.
The Facts
Sometime in 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment[1] against respondent for violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and for Grave Misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, docketed as A.C. No. 7253. He claimed that on July 28, 2005, he filed a Request for Inhibition and Re-Raffle[2] of his client's case before the City Prosecutor's Office on the ground that he and respondent, then a Prosecutor, are not in good terms as they are adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases. In her comment[3] to his request, however, she willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned him and his father, who is not a party to the case. Further, Atty. Nava II alleged that respondent: (1) falsely and maliciously imputed a crime against him; (2) maliciously filed criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department of Justice (DOJ), intended clearly to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate them; and (3) maligned her former superior and colleague, City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldago.[4]
During the pendency of A.C. No. 7253, respondent was appointed and subsequently took her Oath of Office as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City on October 9, 2006,[5]
notwithstanding Atty. Nava II's written opposition[6] thereto. Thus, Atty. Nava II filed a complaint-petition[7] docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, seeking to nullify respondent's nomination and appointment as judge. In said complaint-petition, Atty. Nava II alleged that respondent is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as a judge as she faces "several criminal and administrative cases, the nature of which involves her character, competence, probity, integrity and independence which should not have been disregarded in her application to the judiciary."[8] Upon verifying that there are indeed pending cases against respondent which she failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS) dated October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006, the Court directed[9] her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.[10] Due investigation and proceedings commenced thereafter.
The two (2) cases were subsequently consolidated in a Resolution[11] dated June 17, 2015.
In a Decision[12] dated August 29, 2017, the Court found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, and accordingly, meted her with the penalty of dismissal from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice to her criminal liabilities therein. In addition, the Court: (a) in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, required respondent to show cause why she should not be disbarred for the acts she committed which led to her dismissal, i.e., failure to disclose in her PDS the pendency of various cases against her; and (b) in connection with A.C. No. 7253, required respondent to comment on Atty. Nava II's complaint, which she has yet to submit.
Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration,[13] praying for the reversal of the August 29, 2017 Decision, including the removal of the penalties of dismissal and disqualification, as well as for permission to retire with all the benefits due her. She also filed a Comment[14] dated November 30, 2017 which: (a) simply denied the allegations in the disbarment petition in A.C. No. 7253 and instead largely discussed the administrative cases filed and sanctions meted against Atty. Nava II; and (b) attributed the false statements in her two (2) PDS subject of A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 to mere error in judgment, explaining that while she was aware that there were complaints lodged against her, the clearance from the DOJ led her to honestly believe that the same have not ripened into formal charges to be disclosed in her PDS. Thereafter, respondent filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration[15] dated December 4, 2018, which the Court noted without action in a Resolution[16] dated January 8, 2019.
In a Resolution[17] dated January 10, 2018, the Court resolved to, among others: (1) deny with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration; and (2) referred the Petition for Disbarment, as well as respondent's Comment, to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation of the OBC
In a Report and Recommendation[18] dated March 22, 2019, the OBC recommended that respondent be disbarred pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and that her name be ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.[19] The OBC noted that respondent was already found by the Court guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for her false statements in her two (2) PDS and for her willful defiance of Court directives, which findings, it held, already constitute sufficient grounds to warrant her disbarment. Moreover, notwithstanding the opportunity given her, she failed to provide sufficient explanation why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, after having been dismissed from the service, and instead opted to focus more on attacking and impugning Atty. Nava II's integrity and credibility.[20]
Meanwhile, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration with the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration[21] in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, arguing that there were no evidence showing that she had knowledge of the cases allegedly filed against her nor was there a showing that she received any notice, order or resolution requiring her to comment on the same. Additionally, she reiterates that she was denied due process as the investigating Judge, Vice Executive Judge Danilo P. Galvez, did not inform her of the hearing between the parties.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be disbarred.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, the Court notes that the above report and recommendation of the OBC resolved to disbar respondent based on the Court's findings in the August 29, 2017 Decision in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 sans any findings on the subject matter of A.C. No. 7253. Thus, while the Court is inclined to adopt the OBC's findings and recommendations relative to A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, the Court shall also determine respondent's administrative liability, if any, in A.C. No. 7253 in order to write finis to these consolidated cases against respondent.
I.
Anent A.M No. MTJ-08-1717, it is well to note that in an earlier Decision dated August 29, 2017, the Court had already found respondent guilty of the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for deliberately and calculatedly lying in her October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006 PDS about the fact that she had been formally charged and had pending cases to make it appear that she is qualified for the judgeship position. Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC[22] - which provides that administrative cases against a judge for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification are automatically considered as disciplinary proceedings against him or her as a member of the Bar - respondent was made to show cause why she should not be disbarred. As the OBC correctly pointed out, "[i]nstead of showing cause and proving to the Court why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, [respondent] opted to focus more on attacking and impugning [Atty. Nava II's] integrity and credibility"[23] and conveniently brushed aside her omissions in her PDS as "mere error in judgment."[24] Verily, respondent's untruthful statements in her PDS constitute breaches of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR, all of which respectively read:
II.
As for A.C. No. 7253, it is well to recall that in his complaint, Atty. Nava II claimed, among others, that respondent willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned him and his father, who was not a party to the case, in her comment to his request for her inhibition from said case then being investigated by her as the Prosecutor. Said comment pertinently states:
The Court finds respondent's contentions untenable.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.[26] Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.[27] To this end, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR commands:
In this case, respondent's acts of calling Atty. Nava II and his father "barbaric, nomadic, and outrageous" and baselessly imputing to Atty. Nava II the use of his alleged influence as the godson of the City Prosecutor who, by virtue thereof, allegedly had the audacity to display "his bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance" in an official pleading falls short of the conduct being exhorted by Canon 8 to all members of the Bar. Verily, such use of intemperate language and aspersions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.[31] On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Any violation of these conditions exposes the lawyer to administrative liability,[32] as in this case.
III.
All told, the Court finds that respondent had violated several canons of professional and ethical conduct expected from her as a lawyer and an officer of the court. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same.[33]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz (respondent) GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Accordingly, she is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished to: (a) the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar.
The Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2019 in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the Resolution dated January 10, 2018 denying with finality respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2017).
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on February 18, 2020 a Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled cases, the original of which was received by this Office on June 11, 2020 at 10:05 a.m.
* "Ofelia M. Artuz" in some parts of the records.
[1] Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), pp. 1-11. Considering that respondent was then a Prosecutor of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Iloilo City, the Court referred the matter to the DOJ for appropriate action. However, in view of her subsequent appointment to the judiciary, the record of the Petition for Disbarment was retrieved from the DOJ (see Minute Resolution dated February 11, 2008 [id. at 24-25] and Indorsement of Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony D. Fadullon dated June 21, 2013, [id. at 27]) and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action (see Minute Resolution dated July 1, 2013 [id. at 29]).
[2] See id. at 13.
[3] Dated July 29, 2005. Id. at 14.
[4] See id. at 6-10. See also id. at 41-42.
[5] See respondent's Panunumpa sa Katungkulan dated January 12, 2006; Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), p. 252.
[6] Dated January 4, 2006. Id. at 42-55. Atty. Nava II claimed that the opposition was not acted upon because then Acting Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who was then one of the members of the JBC, is closely related to respondent within the 4th degree of consanguinity (see id. at 44). Records also show that Atty. Nava II, together with one Atty. Amelita K. Del Rosario Benedicto, likewise filed a Petition dated September 24, 2006 before the JBC after respondent had been included in the JBC's list of nominees to the Office of the President (see id. at 75-102).
[7] Filed on October 17, 2006. Id. at 7-39.
[8] Id. at 1.
[9] See Minute Resolution dated November 28, 2007; id. at 256-257.
[10] See id. at 6.
[11] See Minute Resolution dated June 17, 2015; Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), p. 34.
[12] Id. at 40-54. See also Atty. Nava II v. Prosecutor Artuz, 817 Phil. 242 (2017).
[13] See motion for reconsideration dated November 24, 2017; id. at 67-74.
[14] See id. at 79-85.
[15] Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), pp. 685-693.
[16] See Minute Resolution; id. at 746-747
[17] See Minute Resolution; Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), p. 94.
[18] Id. at 98-106.
[19] Id. at 105.
[20] See id. at 98-105.
[21] Dated August 12, 2019. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), pp. 799-801 and 805-813.
[22] Entitled "RE: AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN; JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS; AND COURT OFFICIALS WHO ARE LAWYERS AS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM B0TH AS SUCH OFFICIALS AND AS MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR", dated September 17, 2002 and took effect on October 1, 2002. It provides:
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 14.
[26] See Roque v. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018, citing Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 103 (2003).
[27] Spouses Nuezca v. Villagracia, 792 Phil. 535, 538 (2016), citing Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr. 630 Phil. 524, 530 (2010).
[28] See Roque v. Balbin, supra, citing Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., supra at 106.
[29] 762 Phil. 296 (2015), citing Nuñez v. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450, 459-460 (2005).
[30] See Unsigned Resolution in A.C. No. 8832 dated June 9, 2014.
[31] See Buot v. Jubay, id. See also Spouses Nuezca v. Villagarcia, supra at 540.
[32] See Buenviaje v. Magdamo, 817 Phil. 1, 6 (2017).
[33] San Juan v. Venida, 793 Phil. 656, 666 (2016), citing CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated v. Torres, 743 Phil. 614, 621 (2014).
Sometime in 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment[1] against respondent for violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and for Grave Misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, docketed as A.C. No. 7253. He claimed that on July 28, 2005, he filed a Request for Inhibition and Re-Raffle[2] of his client's case before the City Prosecutor's Office on the ground that he and respondent, then a Prosecutor, are not in good terms as they are adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases. In her comment[3] to his request, however, she willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned him and his father, who is not a party to the case. Further, Atty. Nava II alleged that respondent: (1) falsely and maliciously imputed a crime against him; (2) maliciously filed criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department of Justice (DOJ), intended clearly to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate them; and (3) maligned her former superior and colleague, City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldago.[4]
During the pendency of A.C. No. 7253, respondent was appointed and subsequently took her Oath of Office as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City on October 9, 2006,[5]
notwithstanding Atty. Nava II's written opposition[6] thereto. Thus, Atty. Nava II filed a complaint-petition[7] docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, seeking to nullify respondent's nomination and appointment as judge. In said complaint-petition, Atty. Nava II alleged that respondent is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as a judge as she faces "several criminal and administrative cases, the nature of which involves her character, competence, probity, integrity and independence which should not have been disregarded in her application to the judiciary."[8] Upon verifying that there are indeed pending cases against respondent which she failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS) dated October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006, the Court directed[9] her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.[10] Due investigation and proceedings commenced thereafter.
The two (2) cases were subsequently consolidated in a Resolution[11] dated June 17, 2015.
In a Decision[12] dated August 29, 2017, the Court found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, and accordingly, meted her with the penalty of dismissal from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice to her criminal liabilities therein. In addition, the Court: (a) in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, required respondent to show cause why she should not be disbarred for the acts she committed which led to her dismissal, i.e., failure to disclose in her PDS the pendency of various cases against her; and (b) in connection with A.C. No. 7253, required respondent to comment on Atty. Nava II's complaint, which she has yet to submit.
Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration,[13] praying for the reversal of the August 29, 2017 Decision, including the removal of the penalties of dismissal and disqualification, as well as for permission to retire with all the benefits due her. She also filed a Comment[14] dated November 30, 2017 which: (a) simply denied the allegations in the disbarment petition in A.C. No. 7253 and instead largely discussed the administrative cases filed and sanctions meted against Atty. Nava II; and (b) attributed the false statements in her two (2) PDS subject of A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 to mere error in judgment, explaining that while she was aware that there were complaints lodged against her, the clearance from the DOJ led her to honestly believe that the same have not ripened into formal charges to be disclosed in her PDS. Thereafter, respondent filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration[15] dated December 4, 2018, which the Court noted without action in a Resolution[16] dated January 8, 2019.
In a Resolution[17] dated January 10, 2018, the Court resolved to, among others: (1) deny with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration; and (2) referred the Petition for Disbarment, as well as respondent's Comment, to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In a Report and Recommendation[18] dated March 22, 2019, the OBC recommended that respondent be disbarred pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and that her name be ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.[19] The OBC noted that respondent was already found by the Court guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for her false statements in her two (2) PDS and for her willful defiance of Court directives, which findings, it held, already constitute sufficient grounds to warrant her disbarment. Moreover, notwithstanding the opportunity given her, she failed to provide sufficient explanation why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, after having been dismissed from the service, and instead opted to focus more on attacking and impugning Atty. Nava II's integrity and credibility.[20]
Meanwhile, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration with the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration[21] in connection with A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, arguing that there were no evidence showing that she had knowledge of the cases allegedly filed against her nor was there a showing that she received any notice, order or resolution requiring her to comment on the same. Additionally, she reiterates that she was denied due process as the investigating Judge, Vice Executive Judge Danilo P. Galvez, did not inform her of the hearing between the parties.
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be disbarred.
At the outset, the Court notes that the above report and recommendation of the OBC resolved to disbar respondent based on the Court's findings in the August 29, 2017 Decision in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 sans any findings on the subject matter of A.C. No. 7253. Thus, while the Court is inclined to adopt the OBC's findings and recommendations relative to A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, the Court shall also determine respondent's administrative liability, if any, in A.C. No. 7253 in order to write finis to these consolidated cases against respondent.
Anent A.M No. MTJ-08-1717, it is well to note that in an earlier Decision dated August 29, 2017, the Court had already found respondent guilty of the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for deliberately and calculatedly lying in her October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006 PDS about the fact that she had been formally charged and had pending cases to make it appear that she is qualified for the judgeship position. Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC[22] - which provides that administrative cases against a judge for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification are automatically considered as disciplinary proceedings against him or her as a member of the Bar - respondent was made to show cause why she should not be disbarred. As the OBC correctly pointed out, "[i]nstead of showing cause and proving to the Court why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, [respondent] opted to focus more on attacking and impugning [Atty. Nava II's] integrity and credibility"[23] and conveniently brushed aside her omissions in her PDS as "mere error in judgment."[24] Verily, respondent's untruthful statements in her PDS constitute breaches of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR, all of which respectively read:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.Furthermore, said misdemeanor likewise constitutes a contravention of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful act.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphases supplied)It cannot therefore be denied that Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents constitute grounds to disbar an attorney. In respondent's case, she was herein found to have committed all of these grounds warranting her immediate disbarment as a consequence.
As for A.C. No. 7253, it is well to recall that in his complaint, Atty. Nava II claimed, among others, that respondent willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned him and his father, who was not a party to the case, in her comment to his request for her inhibition from said case then being investigated by her as the Prosecutor. Said comment pertinently states:
1. That Plaridel C. Nava, II should not compare me to the barbaric, nomadic and outrageous attitude he had displayed when he kicked one Som1y Decena on December 8, 2004, while his otherwise barbaric, nomadic and outrageous father would punch Decena on his eyes which I have seen with my own two eyes at the Lobby of the Hall of Justice x x x;In her defense, respondent simply contended that there was no intention to malign, insult, or falsely accuse Atty. Nava II or anyone else as she simply wanted to defend her impartiality. She also denied all the other charges against her.
2. That Nava, II should be made aware that as Provincial Legal Officer of the Province of Guimaras, his practice of law is with limitations. Unless he can show proof that he was authorized by his immediate supervisor in the dates and time that he acts as Guiamaras legal Officer and at the same time, counsel of any party in this case with the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, I WILL ACCEDE to such request. Otherwise, this Office should not make itself bound by all the malicious allegations of counsel and should not allow a barbaric and nomadic person to rule this Office.
Lastly, counsel should not flaunt the personal circumstances of this Investigating Prosecutor, as he himself is a respondent of DISBARMENT cases not only from me, but likewise from the residents of Guimaras, hence, he should not boldly display his bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance in this Office, by virtue of his being the godson of the City Prosecutor and that the latter should not only take cognizance, but should handle with care.
x x x[25] (Emphases supplied; underscoring in the original).
The Court finds respondent's contentions untenable.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.[26] Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.[27] To this end, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR commands:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.Case law instructs that "[l]awyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity[,] and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations[,] and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action."[28] Thus, in Noble III v. Ailes,[29] the Court held that the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession which, as ruled in Buot v. Jubay,[30] should never be countenanced as it tends to degrade the dignity of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
In this case, respondent's acts of calling Atty. Nava II and his father "barbaric, nomadic, and outrageous" and baselessly imputing to Atty. Nava II the use of his alleged influence as the godson of the City Prosecutor who, by virtue thereof, allegedly had the audacity to display "his bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance" in an official pleading falls short of the conduct being exhorted by Canon 8 to all members of the Bar. Verily, such use of intemperate language and aspersions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.[31] On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Any violation of these conditions exposes the lawyer to administrative liability,[32] as in this case.
All told, the Court finds that respondent had violated several canons of professional and ethical conduct expected from her as a lawyer and an officer of the court. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same.[33]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz (respondent) GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Accordingly, she is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished to: (a) the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar.
The Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2019 in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the Resolution dated January 10, 2018 denying with finality respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2017).
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on February 18, 2020 a Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled cases, the original of which was received by this Office on June 11, 2020 at 10:05 a.m.
| | Very truly yours, |
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
* "Ofelia M. Artuz" in some parts of the records.
[1] Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), pp. 1-11. Considering that respondent was then a Prosecutor of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Iloilo City, the Court referred the matter to the DOJ for appropriate action. However, in view of her subsequent appointment to the judiciary, the record of the Petition for Disbarment was retrieved from the DOJ (see Minute Resolution dated February 11, 2008 [id. at 24-25] and Indorsement of Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony D. Fadullon dated June 21, 2013, [id. at 27]) and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action (see Minute Resolution dated July 1, 2013 [id. at 29]).
[2] See id. at 13.
[3] Dated July 29, 2005. Id. at 14.
[4] See id. at 6-10. See also id. at 41-42.
[5] See respondent's Panunumpa sa Katungkulan dated January 12, 2006; Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), p. 252.
[6] Dated January 4, 2006. Id. at 42-55. Atty. Nava II claimed that the opposition was not acted upon because then Acting Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who was then one of the members of the JBC, is closely related to respondent within the 4th degree of consanguinity (see id. at 44). Records also show that Atty. Nava II, together with one Atty. Amelita K. Del Rosario Benedicto, likewise filed a Petition dated September 24, 2006 before the JBC after respondent had been included in the JBC's list of nominees to the Office of the President (see id. at 75-102).
[7] Filed on October 17, 2006. Id. at 7-39.
[8] Id. at 1.
[9] See Minute Resolution dated November 28, 2007; id. at 256-257.
[10] See id. at 6.
[11] See Minute Resolution dated June 17, 2015; Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), p. 34.
[12] Id. at 40-54. See also Atty. Nava II v. Prosecutor Artuz, 817 Phil. 242 (2017).
[13] See motion for reconsideration dated November 24, 2017; id. at 67-74.
[14] See id. at 79-85.
[15] Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), pp. 685-693.
[16] See Minute Resolution; id. at 746-747
[17] See Minute Resolution; Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), p. 94.
[18] Id. at 98-106.
[19] Id. at 105.
[20] See id. at 98-105.
[21] Dated August 12, 2019. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717), pp. 799-801 and 805-813.
[22] Entitled "RE: AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN; JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS; AND COURT OFFICIALS WHO ARE LAWYERS AS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM B0TH AS SUCH OFFICIALS AND AS MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR", dated September 17, 2002 and took effect on October 1, 2002. It provides:
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.[23] Rollo (A.C. No. 7253), p. 102.
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. (Emphases supplied)
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 14.
[26] See Roque v. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018, citing Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 103 (2003).
[27] Spouses Nuezca v. Villagracia, 792 Phil. 535, 538 (2016), citing Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr. 630 Phil. 524, 530 (2010).
[28] See Roque v. Balbin, supra, citing Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., supra at 106.
[29] 762 Phil. 296 (2015), citing Nuñez v. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450, 459-460 (2005).
[30] See Unsigned Resolution in A.C. No. 8832 dated June 9, 2014.
[31] See Buot v. Jubay, id. See also Spouses Nuezca v. Villagarcia, supra at 540.
[32] See Buenviaje v. Magdamo, 817 Phil. 1, 6 (2017).
[33] San Juan v. Venida, 793 Phil. 656, 666 (2016), citing CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated v. Torres, 743 Phil. 614, 621 (2014).