Rodica v. Lazaro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jasper Junno F. Rodica filed a disbarment complaint against several lawyers. The Supreme Court, in a prior resolution dated August 23, 2012, dismissed the complaint and warned one of the respondent lawyers. Procedural History: The complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Inhibition of the August 23, 2012 Resolution. He argued that the Court ignored supporting affidavits, denied him due process by not allowing a reply, and erred in its findings regarding an un-notarized affidavit and the scope of case withdrawals. The Petition: The complainant sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the disbarment complaint and the inhibition of the justices who participated in the case, alleging bias.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court erred in dismissing the disbarment complaint despite the supporting affidavits submitted by the complainant. Whether the complainant was denied due process by not being given an opportunity to file a Reply and by the Court resolving the case without declaring it submitted for resolution. Whether the Court erred in characterizing the complainant's Affidavit dated July 21, 2011, as 'un-notarized' and in its observation regarding the withdrawal of pending cases. Whether the justices who participated in the case should inhibit themselves due to alleged bias.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Inhibition for lack of merit. The Court affirmed its previous resolution dismissing the disbarment complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the consideration of affidavits: The Court considered the affidavits of Brimar F. Rodica, Timothy F. Rodica, and Atty. Ramon S. Diño as corroborative evidence. However, the Court is not obligated to mention every piece of evidence; it suffices that the factual findings and bases for conclusions are clearly stated. The Court has the discretion to accord credence to evidence it deems relevant and material. The Court found no necessity to restate the material facts from each affidavit as they were already summarized in the Complaint. On due process and procedural matters: The complainant was not denied due process. The Court has the discretion to dismiss a disbarment complaint outright if it is clearly wanting in merit, citing precedents like International Militia of People Against Corruption & Terrorism v. Chief Justice Davide, Jr. (Ret.) and Battad v. Senator Defensor-Santiago. In this case, the Court did require respondents to file Comments before judiciously resolving the case. The Court also has the discretion not to require a Reply if it can already resolve the case based on the submitted pleadings. Furthermore, the Court can resolve a case without explicitly declaring it submitted for resolution. On the 'un-notarized' affidavit and case withdrawals: The Court maintained that the July 21, 2011 Affidavit was indeed 'un-notarized' as it lacked a jurat, despite the complainant's claim of acknowledgment before a notary public. The Court also found its observation regarding other pending cases to be correct, as the complainant's own sworn affidavit mentioned filing a civil case (Civil Case No. 8987) and a case with the HLURB, contradicting her claim of being unaware of other pending cases. The Court also noted that Atty. Joseph Tan's Answer in another related case mentioned several other cases. On the Motion for Inhibition: The motion to inhibit was denied for lack of basis. The Court reiterated that an inhibition must be for a just and valid reason, and the mere imputation of bias or partiality is insufficient, especially when unfounded. The complainant's assertion of bias and prejudice was found to be baseless and clearly unfounded.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration and inhibition filed by a complainant in a disbarment case was denied for lack of merit, with the Court affirming its previous resolution that dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to the respondents. The Court also clarified procedural aspects regarding the consideration of evidence and the right to file a reply.