Gatmaytan v. Ilao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr. represented Teofista Payuran in a civil case before the Pasay City RTC. Respondent Atty. Isidro C. Ilao was counsel for the opposing party. Following an adverse decision, complainant filed multiple motions for reconsideration and a notice of appeal, which was denied as time-barred. Subsequently, complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: During the pendency of the appellate case, respondent Atty. Ilao filed a disbarment complaint against herein complainant Atty. Gatmaytan, Jr. before the Supreme Court, and a separate complaint for damages against Atty. Gatmaytan, Jr., Teofista Payuran, and Atty. Augusto Gatmaytan before the RTC of Nasugbu, Batangas. In response, herein complainant Atty. Gatmaytan, Jr. filed his own disbarment complaint against Atty. Ilao before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging false representations, falsehood, misleading the court, and misuse of procedural rules. The Petition: The IBP's Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of Atty. Gatmaytan, Jr.'s complaint for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Complainant moved for reconsideration, arguing that an investigation should have been conducted. The IBP denied the motion, and the Supreme Court treated the motion as an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Investigating Commissioner erred in dismissing the disbarment complaint without conducting a formal investigation. Whether the filing of a complaint for damages constitutes a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the resolution of the IBP dismissing the disbarment complaint. The Court held that the Investigating Commissioner has the discretion to dismiss a complaint if it appears to be without merit, either on its face or after the respondent has filed an answer, without the necessity of a formal investigation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether an investigation should have been conducted: The Court clarified the provisions of Section 5 and Section 8 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. It explained that an investigation is mandated only if the complaint appears meritorious, or if the respondent's answer fails to show to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, or if the respondent fails to answer. Conversely, if the complaint lacks merit, or if the answer demonstrates its lack of merit, the Investigator may recommend dismissal. In this case, Commissioner San Juan determined that the complaint did not merit action after reviewing the pleadings. The Court emphasized that it is within the sound discretion of the Investigator to determine the necessity of an investigation. The complainant's assertion that an investigation was mandatory was found to be a misapprehension of the rules. The Court reiterated that it would be unjust to mandate an investigation when a complaint is demonstrably bereft of merit. The Investigating Commissioner's determination that no investigation was needed was therefore upheld. On the issue of whether the filing of the complaint for damages constitutes a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility: The Court found no merit in the complainant's contention that the filing of the complaint for damages by respondent Atty. Ilao was intended to harass. The Court noted that the complaint for damages arose from the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus, and whether the claim for damages had merit was not the issue in the disbarment case. The Court cited R&B Surety and Insurance Co. v. IAC, stating that the adverse result of an action does not per se make it wrongful, and the law does not penalize the right to litigate. Furthermore, the Court found that the venue for the damages case was properly laid in Batangas, as one of the plaintiffs, respondent Atty. Ilao, resided there, and venue may be chosen based on the residence of the plaintiffs. Therefore, there was no showing that respondent Atty. Ilao made false representations, committed falsehood, misled the court, or misused the Rules of Procedure in violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
The Investigating Commissioner has the discretion to determine whether a complaint for disbarment is meritorious and warrants an investigation, or if it may be dismissed outright based on the pleadings submitted.