ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 5444.
CHEN vs. CALASAN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
Administrative Case No. 5444 (Ang Kek Chen vs. Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan .)
R E S O L U T I O N
Before the Court are the following motions of complainant Ang Kek Chen: Motion for
Reconsideration of SC Resolution Dated August 02, 2004 and/or Motion to Set
Aside SC Resolution Dated August 02, 2004 with Corollary Motions; Motion to
Hold Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Director for Bar Discipline, Accountable for His Artifice in
Misleading the Honorable Supreme Court Into Rendering SC Resolution Dated
August 02, 2004; Motion for Explanation from Atty. Corazon Flores, Assistant
Bar Confidant, For Her Intentional Failure to Expose and Stop Said Artifice;
Motion to Return the Case Records to the IBP and to Require the IBP to Submit
Its Report and Recommendation on Complainant's June 23, 2004 Motion for
Reconsideration of IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-87 Dated
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On June 4, 2001, a complaint was filed with the Court accusing respondent Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan of dishonesty, duplicity and depravity for (1) causing the malicious publication of wanted notices against complainant; (2) making untruthful statement in his petition for notarial commission and refusal to state his full name, address, PTR and IBP numbers during the hearing in the preliminary investigation of a libel case; (3) filing complaints for libel against complainant in Aparri, Cagayan despite respondent being a resident of Manila; and (4) being a member of what complainant calls the "Grand Aklan Conspiracy."
Respondent filed his Comment to the complaint wherein he averred that complainant is predisposed to writing scurrilous and libelous matters, and in A.M. No. 95-8-274 and A.M. No. RTJ-99-1504, complainant has been sternly warned by the Court against filing pleadings of this nature; that complainant nonetheless persisted, and numerous libel cases were filed against him; that complainant has succeeded in delaying the cases by filing administrative complaints against judges acting on his cases, motions for postponement, motions for reconsideration and petitions with the trial court. Respondent also presented his defense against complainant's accusation.
In a Resolution dated
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it 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 there being no merit to complainant's accusation against Respondent, the same is hereby DISMISSED.
In her Report and Recommendation, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V, San Juan found that there was no proof showing that respondent prepared and caused the publication of the wanted notices, noting that even the name of respondent does not appear thereon. The fact that respondent is the counsel of record of Jaime U. Lim, the private complainant, does not prove that he is responsible for the publication of the wanted notices.
She opined that there was no rule of procedure violated by respondent when he refused to write down his full name, address, PTR and IBP numbers during the preliminary investigation. Even the prosecutor did not find said information necessary and did not order respondent to provide them.
As to Bar Matter No. 981 for alleged use by respondent of an unauthorized name, Commissioner San Juan correctly opined that this is a distinct matter.
With respect to the utterances of "Sira
ulo
"
and "Leche
," Commissioner San Juan noted that this
is the subject of a complaint for oral defamation and grave slander filed by
complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, and that this
complaint was dismissed in a
Resolution dated
Neither did Commissioner San Juan find respondent administratively liable for filing a libel case against complainant in Aparri, Cagayan since wrong venue is not a ground for administrative sanction. She also noted that said case had indeed been dismissed for improper venue. Commissioner San Juan also stated that it was "hard to make sense" of the allegations of complainant regarding the "Grand Aklan Conspiracy," and was of the view that the acts referred to "is [are] nothing more than the alleged conspirators performing their official duties as Judges, prosecutors and lawyers. Apparently, when said official duties ran counter to the desire of complainant, the latter took if to mean a collective action against himself."
The Court, in the Resolution dated
Meanwhile, complainant had filed a Motion to Set Aside IBP Resolution No. XV-2002-598.
On
Sometime thereafter, complainant filed an Omnibus Motion with this Court praying that:
- This Court's Resolution dated
- IBP Resolution No. XV-2002-598 be set aside;
- Respondent be disbarred for his contumacious and blatant betrayal of his lawyer's oath;
- Commissioner San Juan be held accountable for not acting with justice, giving complainant his due and not observing honesty and good faith in the performance of her duties;
- The Secretary of Justice be requested to hasten the resolution of the administrative cases he had filed against certain prosecutors in Aparri, Cagayan and Kalibo, Aklan; and
- The OCA be directed to order the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan and the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan to turn over the case records of the dismissed libel cases to enable the Court and the Judicial Excellence Awards Committee to evaluate the performances of the nominees.
In the Resolution dated
On
On
Subsequently, complainant furnished the Court the following:
- Letter of complainant addressed to Asst. Bar Confidant Corazon Flores, asking: (a) why his motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. XVI-2004-87 and/or his "Motion to Do What is Morally Right" were not reported to the Court in the agenda of August 2, 2004; and (b) whether said IBP resolution was delivered to the Court personally or by registered mail, and if by registered mail, the registry receipt number, date and origin.
- Motion for Reconsideration dated
Complainant likewise filed before the
Court a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
Resolution dated
1)
To hold Atty. Rogelio Vinluan,
IBP Director of Bar Discipline, accountable for his artifice in misleading the
Court into rendering the Resolution dated
2) For Asst. Bar Confidant Corazon Flores to explain her failure to expose Atty. Vinluan's artifice; and
3) To return the case records to the IBP and require the same to submit its report and recommendation.
First of all, the Court notes that the Office of the Bar Confidant cannot be faulted for not including complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and "Motion to Do What is Morally Right" in the Court's agenda of August 2, 2004 since said pleadings were addressed to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The caption of said pleadings showed that it was not meant to be acted upon by the Court since it was a motion filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, although complainant chose to furnish the Office of the Bar Confidant with a copy thereof.
With regard to complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's Resolution dated
A perusal of the motion for reconsideration shows that it is merely a rehash of his complaints and arguments. Complainant maintains that respondent should be disbarred for causing the filing of "baseless, unfounded and unlawful out-of-town libel/criminal cases" against him in retaliation for lodging a complaint against the client of respondent (Ironcon Builders and Development Corporation) with the Philippine Contractors' Accreditation Board. Complainant reiterates that the libel eases were filed to impose "extreme hardships, inconveniences and harassments on him." The report and recommendation of Commissioner San Juan has sufficiently addressed and correctly resolved the charges against respondent, ruling that filing of cases in the wrong venue is not a ground for administrative sanction. Complainant adduces no new arguments or any newly discovered evidence in the present motion for reconsideration filed with the Court.
Complainant also incorporated in his motion for reconsideration, the following motions: (a) to hold Atty. Rogelio Vinluan accountable for his "artifice"; (b) to require Atty. Corazon Flores to explain her failure to "expose and stop the artifice" of Atty. Vinluan; and (c) to return this case to the IBP for a report and recommendation on his Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. XVI-2004-87, and to appoint a new investigating commissioner in his case. All these motions are likewise utterly bereft of merit.
It appears that the alleged "artifice" of Atty. Vinluan consisted in his failure to provide him with a copy
of the IBP letter transmitting Resolution No. XVI-2004-87 to
the Court. Complainant claims
that he only received a copy of said resolution and the report and
recommendation of Commissioner San Juan. According to complainant, because of this, he filed on
It should be emphasized that there is absolutely no rule mandating the IBP to furnish complainant even with the covering letter transmitting the IBP's actions to this Court. There is nothing therein which would in any way affect complainant's rights or interests. Thus, it is enough that complainant was given a copy of the IBP resolution and the report and recommendation. As to his "Motion to Do What is Morally Right," said pleading was filed after the IBP had already considered the report and recommendation of Commissioner San Juan, adopted the same and transmitted its action to the Court. It is essentially another motion for reconsideration, alleging the same facts and arguments as those passed upon by the IBP.
The foregoing sufficiently shows that the IBP and this Court had
judiciously addressed complainant's concerns and there is no reason whatsoever
which justifies reconsideration of the Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, complainant's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
