THIRD DIVISION
JUDGE
NIMFA P.
SITACA,
Complainant,
Adm.
Case
No. 5285
April 14, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
DIEGO M.
PALOMARES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca
seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., for having filed
a falsified bail bond.
Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca
was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was Criminal Case No.
RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares, a son of Atty. Diego M.
Palomares, Jr., herein respondent. Sometime in September 1997, Atty.
Palomares,
in representation of Dunhill, filed a bail bond of P200,000.00 to
secure
the latter’s release. The bail bond was purportedly signed and approved
by the late Judge Nazar U. Chavez, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch
18
of Cagayan de Oro City, and with it was a corresponding order of
release
signed by RTC Branch 18 Clerk of Court Atty. Glenn Peter C. Baldado.
When
informed of the filing by Atty. Palomares of the bail bond, ostensibly
signed by Judge Chavez, Judge Sitaca approved the release of the
accused.cralaw:red
When RTC Branch 35 Clerk
of Court Atty. Roy P. Murallon later requested Atty. Baldado to forward
to the Ozamis City RTC the original records and supporting documents on
the bail bond, Atty. Baldado, by then already a practicing lawyer,
disavowed
the existence of the bail bond. Atty. Baldado wrote to say that per the
official records of Cagayan de Oro RTC, Branch 18, the bail bond did
not
exist, that no approval was made by Judge Chavez, and that no order for
the release of Dunhill was issued. Atty. Baldado concluded that the
bail
bond was a forged document.cralaw:red
Judge Sitaca directed
Atty. Palomares to explain. In his letter to Judge Sitaca, Atty.
Palomares
stated that he was the corporate legal counsel of Bentley House
International
Corporation, and when the bail application was approved for
P200,000.00,
he requested the amount from Jonathon Stevenz and Cristina Q. Romarate,
Chief Operations Officer and Treasurer, respectively, of Bentley House
International Corporation. Instead of giving the money, Stevenz and
Romarate
proposed to utilize the services of William Guialani. He acceded.
Guialani
then delivered the release order, which Atty. Palomares immediately
presented
to the Branch 35 clerk of court of RTC Ozamis City. The clerk of court
read the release order and then issued the corresponding order for the
release of Dunhill Palomares. Atty. Palomares denied any wrongdoing in
connection with the submission of the falsified bail bond and offered,
in any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash bond.cralaw:red
Judge Sitaca, finding
the explanation unsatisfactory, filed disbarment proceedings against
Atty.
Palomares.cralaw:red
The Court, in its 2nd
August 2000 resolution, required Atty. Palomares to comment on the
complaint
for disbarment. In his comment, Atty. Palomares reiterated his previous
explanation to Judge Sitaca. In addition, he intimated that Judge
Sitaca
was covering up for the negligence of her clerk of court. He claimed
that
Judge Sitaca was not around when the release order was issued because
it
was a Saturday and only a skeletal force was in the office. Atty.
Palomares
said that he had asked the help of Atty. Manuel Ravanera to prove that
the bail bond was secured by Guialani who could have possibly been in
"cahoots"
with some court employees.cralaw:red
In its resolution of
19 March 2003, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
In a Report and Recommendation,
dated 24 July 2003, Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan held that there
was
no doubt that the bail bond and order of release were "fictitious." She
stated that while there was no conclusive proof that Atty. Palomares
had
been the author of the fictitious bail and release order, it could not
be denied, however, that it was he who presented the papers to the
court.
Atty. Palomares failed to satisfactorily explain, she stated, why he
had
to take a circuitous route and secure the services of Guialani despite
his claim that he could have easily availed himself of the facilities
of
other insurance companies. She recommended that Atty. Palomares be
suspended
from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months. The
recommendation
was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on 30 August 2003 in its
Resolution
No. XVI-2002-81.cralaw:red
Administrative complaints
for disbarment are referred to the IBP for formal investigation by the
Court after an evaluation by it of the pleadings submitted.[1]
An ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent
fails
to appear despite reasonable notice.[2]
In this case, it would appear that no investigation, not even just an
ex-parte
investigation, was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline.cralaw:red
The prevailing procedure
for investigation is that expressed in Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
some pertinent provisions of which read:
"SEC. 3.
Duties
of the National Grievance Investigator. – The National Grievance
Investigators
shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar
referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors.
"x x
x
x x x x x x
"SEC. 5. Service
or
dismissal. – If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the
Investigator
shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent,
requiring
him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of
service.
If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the
satisfaction
of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may
be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy
of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and
the
Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely
appeal
of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of
the complaint.
"No investigation
shall
be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant
to
prosecute the same.
"x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"SEC. 8.
Investigation.
– Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer,
the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the
investigation
of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer
oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself,
to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel.
However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
"The Investigator
shall
terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of
its
commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors
upon prior application.
"Willful failure
to
refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator
shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The
corresponding
charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of
Governors
which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10)
days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings,
if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule
for
hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as
practicable
be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter,
the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15)
days
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations,
which
shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and
if warranted, the imposition of penalty."
The Court must call for
the due observance of the foregoing rules, and it is, thus, constrained
to remand the case to the IBP for further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
for further proceedings; it is also directed to act on this referral
with
dispatch.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Cottam vs. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834, 29 February 2000, 326 SCRA 614.
[2]
Ibid. |
