Baltazar v. Dimalanta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Antonio B. Baltazar filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent was the counsel for Bartolome Cabrera, the accused in Criminal Case No. G-4499 and Criminal Case No. G-5132, both charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Respondent had filed a motion for reinvestigation with the Ombudsman for Criminal Case No. G-4499. The trial court scheduled Cabrera's arraignment in Criminal Case No. G-5132 for June 6, 2000. On that date, respondent filed a motion to postpone the arraignment and to seek reinvestigation, which the trial court granted, resetting the arraignment to July 11, 2000, and directing the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation within thirty days. Procedural History: Subsequent hearings were reset due to the absence of a prosecutor and the pendency of the reinvestigation. On January 25, 2001, during the scheduled arraignment for Criminal Case No. G-5132, respondent manifested that he had a pending motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's order dated April 29, 1999, denying his earlier motion for reinvestigation, and requested a resetting. The trial court granted the resetting but directed respondent to secure a resolution before the next hearing, stating the arraignment would proceed with or without it. Complainant alleged that respondent made false representations to delay the arraignment as he never sought a reinvestigation for Criminal Case No. G-5132. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Petition: The IBP found respondent liable for falsehood and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP noted that respondent's claim of a pending motion for reconsideration of a denial dated April 29, 1999, was inconsistent with his earlier stance of not having filed a motion for reinvestigation as of June 6, 2000. It was also found that the denial on April 29, 1999, pertained to a different case (OMB-1-98-1109) and not Criminal Case No. G-5132 (OMB-1-99-2381). Respondent, in his comment to the IBP Report, claimed for the first time that his manifestation on January 25, 2001, was intended for Criminal Case No. G-4499, not G-5132, and that the trial court's identical orders for both cases on that date might have caused the confusion. Complainant countered that the joint hearing and identical orders were not unusual.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta violated Rules 1.01, 1.03, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by allegedly making false representations to the trial court to delay his client's arraignment. Whether the respondent's manifestation regarding a pending motion for reconsideration of an Ombudsman's denial of a reinvestigation constituted misrepresentation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Rules 1.01, 1.03, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that the IBP's conclusion of dishonesty and misrepresentation was not sustainable. The IBP erred in finding that respondent led the trial court to believe he had filed a motion for reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. G-5132 when "there was never a pending motion." The Court clarified that under Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 13-96, motions for reinvestigation must be addressed to the trial court if the case is already filed. In this instance, the trial court, in its June 20, 2000 Order, explicitly directed the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. G-5132 and submit a report. Therefore, respondent was not required to file another motion with the Ombudsman, as the trial court had already ordered the reinvestigation. The Court noted that the complainant did not deny respondent's claim that the Ombudsman did not notify him to submit additional evidence for the reinvestigation. On the alleged misrepresentation under the January 25, 2001 Order: The Court held that respondent could not be held liable for misrepresentation based on his manifestation during the January 25, 2001 hearing. The Court considered the new evidence presented by the parties, including the existence of two identical orders issued by the trial court for Criminal Case No. G-4499 and Criminal Case No. G-5132 on that date. This, coupled with the complainant's admission that the trial court jointly heard these cases and issued identical orders on a previous date (November 27, 2000), made respondent's claim that his manifestation was intended for Criminal Case No. G-4499 (where the Ombudsman had indeed denied a motion for reinvestigation on April 29, 1999) and was inadvertently duplicated in Criminal Case No. G-5132, likely. The Court also pointed out that the trial court's statement that "the case [has] been pending since January 1, 1998" could only refer to Criminal Case No. G-4499, as Criminal Case No. G-5132 was received by the court much later. Therefore, the Court found no basis to hold respondent liable for dishonesty and misrepresentation.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer cannot be held liable for misrepresentation for stating that a motion for reconsideration of an Ombudsman's denial of a reinvestigation was pending, when such statement was made in reference to a different case that was jointly heard, and the trial court's order reflecting this statement was inadvertently duplicated in the case at bar.