FIRST DIVISION
WALTER
T. YOUNG,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5379
May 9, 2003
-versus-
CEASAR G.
BATUEGAS,
MIGUELITO
NAZARENO
V. LLANTINO
AND
FRANKLIN Q.
SUSA,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On December 29, 2000, Atty.
Walter T. Young filed a verified affidavit-complaint for disbarment
against
Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin
Q. Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court and
violating
the Lawyer’s Oath.[1]chanrobles virtual law library
Complainant is the private
prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-187627 for Murder, entitled "People
of the Philippines versus Crisanto Arana, Jr.", pending before the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27. On December 13, 2000,
respondents
Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation
with
Motion for Bail, alleging that the "accused has voluntarily surrendered
to a person in authority. As such, he is now under detention."[2]
Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI)
where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he
surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of
Detention
executed by Atty. Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management
Division of the NBI.cralaw:red
Respondent Susa, the
Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila, Branch 27, calendared the
motion
on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other
formal
defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private
complainant,
violation of the three-day notice rule, and the failure to attach the
Certificate
of Detention which was referred to in the Motion as Annex "1".cralaw:red
Respondents filed their
respective comments, declaring that on December 13, 2000, upon learning
that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed
the
Manifestation with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then
they
immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to
voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they
arrived
at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of
detention
indicated that the accused surrendered on December 14, 2000. They
argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the
subject
pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained
at
the NBI. As regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend
that
complainant, as private prosecutor, was not entitled to any
notice.
Nevertheless, they furnished the State and City prosecutors copies of
the
motion with notice of hearing thereof. Moreover, the hearing of a
motion on shorter notice is allowed under Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the
Rules
of Court.[3]chanrobles virtual law library
For his part, respondent
Susa argues in his comment that he was no longer in court when his
co-respondents
filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. Ms. Teofila A.
Peña,
Clerk III, received the said Motion and noticed that it was set for
hearing
on December 15, 2000 and the Certificate of Detention was not
attached.
However, the presiding judge instructed her to receive the Motion
subject
to the presentation of the Certificate of Detention before the
hearing.
Thus, the inclusion of the Motion in the court’s calendar on December
15,
2000 was authorized by the presiding judge and, thus, was done by
respondent
Susa in faithful performance of his ministerial duty.cralaw:red
In a Resolution dated
August 13, 2001,[4]
the instant case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.cralaw:red
On December 7, 2001,
the Investigating Commissioner, Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, submitted her
report and recommendation as follows:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing
premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Ceasar
G.
Batuegas and Atty. Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the
practice of their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period
of six (6) months from receipt hereof. The complaint against
Atty.
Franklin Q. Susa, upon the other hand, is hereby recommended dismissed
for lack of merit.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
The foregoing Report
and Recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP-Commission on
Bar
Discipline in Resolution No. XV-2002-400, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules,
and in view of respondents’ commission of deliberate falsehood, Atty.
Batuegas
and Atty. Llantino are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six
(6) months. The complaint against Atty. Susa is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.[6]
We agree with the findings
and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner.
Respondents
Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood.cralaw:red
A lawyer must be a disciple
of truth.[7]
He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood
nor
consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct himself as
a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients."[8]
He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high
vocation
is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case
and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion.[9]
The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete
honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.[10]
While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is
expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause,
his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court may disbar
or suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether in his professional or
private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, thus proving unworthy to continue as an
officer
of the court.[12]
Evidently, respondent
lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from
them
as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail
will
be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging
that
accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was
under
detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to
mislead
the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly
allege
an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct
that
we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted
to deception.cralaw:red
Respondents contend
that their allegation of the accused’s detention was merely a statement
of an ultimate fact which still had to be proved by evidence at the
hearing
of the Motion. That they were able to show that their client was
already under the custody of the NBI at the hearing held on December
15,
2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that the
allegation
that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on December 13, 2000 was
false.chanrobles virtual law library
In Comia vs. Antona,
we held:
It is of no
moment that the accused eventually surrendered to the police
authorities
on the same date "tentatively" scheduled for the hearing of the
application
for bail. To our mind, such supervening event is of no bearing
and
immaterial; it does not absolve respondent judge from administrative
liability
considering that he should not have accorded recognition to the
application
for bail filed on behalf of persons who, at that point, were devoid of
personality to ask such specific affirmative relief from the court.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
In this
jurisdiction,
whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable notice of
hearing
is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at least, he
must
be asked for his recommendation.[14]
In the case at bar, the
prosecution was served with notice of hearing of the motion for bail
two
days prior to the scheduled date. Although a motion may be heard
on short notice, respondents failed to show any good cause to justify
the
non-observance of the three-day notice rule. Verily, as lawyers,
they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse
them
to defeat the ends of justice.[15]
Finally, we are in accord
with the Investigating Commissioner that respondent clerk of court
should
not be made administratively liable for including the Motion in the
calendar
of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by the presiding
judge. However, he is reminded that his administrative functions,
although not involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are vital
to the prompt and sound administration of justice.[16]
Thus, he should not hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any
act or conduct on the part of lawyers which are contrary to the
established
rules of procedure.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno
V. Llantino are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood.
Accordingly, they are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of
six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
Let a copy of this Resolution
be attached to the personal records of Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas and
Miguelito
Nazareno V. Llantino in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies
thereof
be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1-2.
[2]
Id., p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., pp. 31-36, 70-85.
[4]
Id., p. 128.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id., p. 135.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Resolution No. XV-2002-400 dated August 3, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 12 March
1998,
287 SCRA 449, 463.
[8]
Form 28, Appendix of Forms, Revised Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Artiaga, Jr. v. Villanueva, A.C. No. 1892, 29 July 1988, 163 SCRA 638,
643.
[10]
Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, 357 Phil. 703, 718 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, 30 April 1999, 366 SCRA 132, 151.
[12]
Tapucar v. Tapucar, 335 Phil. 66, 74 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
A.M. RTJ-99-1518, 14 August 2000, 337 SCRA 656, 667.
[14]
Te v. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1286, 21 January 2002.
[15]
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 10.03chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Escanan v. Monterola, A.M. No. P-99-1347, 6 February 2001, 351
SCRA
228, 234. |