Facinal v. Olandesca
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Leopoldo Facinal filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Per Olandesca, alleging that Olandesca unlawfully entered Facinal's fishpond, threatened workers, coerced Facinal's son, and used PC soldiers to drive out overseers, ultimately taking possession of the fishpond. Olandesca denied the charges, asserting that Facinal was a squatter on public land for which Olandesca held a fishpond permit. Olandesca claimed he had reported Facinal's illegal intrusion and tree cutting to the Bureau of Forest Development and Philippine Fisheries Commission, leading to the confiscation of trees and a criminal case against Facinal. 2. Procedural History: Facinal's disbarment complaint was filed on May 2, 1973. This Court, by resolution on October 23, 1973, referred the complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted a report on September 30, 1983, after conducting the investigation. 3. The Petition: This case originated from a petition for disbarment filed by Leopoldo Facinal against Atty. Per Olandesca. The petition alleged various misconduct by Olandesca related to a dispute over a fishpond. The Solicitor General's report, after investigation, found that the accusations of harassment and coercion were not satisfactorily shown, and that Olandesca had no hand in the preparation of sworn statements by Facinal's relatives and workers. The report also noted that the forestry officer, not Olandesca, seized the illegally cut trees and filed the criminal complaint. Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint for lack of merit, a recommendation this Court adopted.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent harassed, coerced, threatened, forced, and intimidated complainant's son, relatives, and men into signing sworn statements. Whether the respondent had a hand in the preparation of the sworn statements signed by complainant's relative, Cesar Facinal, and seventeen others, and complainant's overseer, Martin Facinal. Whether the respondent was responsible for the seizure of illegally cut trees and the filing of a criminal case against the complainant.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Per Olandesca is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of harassment, coercion, and intimidation in signing sworn statements: The Court, adopting the findings of the Solicitor General, found that the accusation that respondent harassed, coerced, threatened, forced, and intimidated complainant's son, Wendell Facinal, his relatives, and men into signing sworn statements had not been satisfactorily shown. It was noted that Wendell Facinal refused to sign a sworn statement, and nothing untoward happened to him. Furthermore, complainant's relative, Cesar Facinal, and seventeen others, as well as complainant's overseer, Martin Facinal, voluntarily signed their respective affidavits in the presence of government officials, including fishery and forestry officers, and PC personnel. There was no satisfactory showing that the respondent had a hand in the preparation of these statements. On the issue of respondent's involvement in the preparation of sworn statements: The Solicitor General's report indicated that there was no showing that respondent Atty. Per Olandesca had a hand in the preparation of the sworn statements signed by Cesar Facinal and Martin Facinal. Even if he was present with the group, it was merely because he was affected by the illegal cutting of trees in the area covered by his fishpond permit. The evidence did not establish his direct participation in the preparation of these documents. On the issue of seizure of illegally cut trees and filing of criminal case: The record disclosed that it was the forestry officer, Jesus L. Maglantay, who seized the illegally cut trees, not the respondent. All that respondent did was to complain to the forestry officer about the illegal cutting of trees within the area of his fishpond permit. It was also the forestry officer who filed the complaint against the complainant with the municipal court of Sapian for Violation of P.D. No. 54. Therefore, the respondent was not responsible for these actions.
Main Doctrine
The administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Per Olandesca was dismissed for lack of merit, as the charges of harassment, coercion, and illegal dispossession were not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.