Cobarrubias-Nabaza v. Lavandero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Presiding Judge Suzanne D. Cobarrubias-Nabaza filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, a Court Attorney IV, for violating multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The respondent was a co-plaintiff in a BP 22 case before the complainant's sala. After a favorable ruling, certain properties of the defendant, including a Black Hyundai Accent (subject vehicle), were placed under custodia legis for levy, execution, and auction sale. The complainant discovered that the respondent had taken the subject vehicle out of court premises on three occasions without her prior knowledge and approval, as evidenced by CCTV footages, despite the absence of a public auction. Procedural History: The complainant's letter was docketed as an administrative proceeding against the respondent as a Judiciary employee (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC) and later as a disciplinary case against him as a member of the Bar (A.C. No. 12323). The Office of Administrative Services – Supreme Court (OAS-SC) recommended that the respondent be found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and be fined P10,000.00, with a warning. The OAS-SC also recommended referral to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for action as a member of the Bar. The respondent claimed he had authority to take the vehicle, stating it underwent a public auction where he was the highest bidder, blaming the sheriff for any irregularities. The Court docketed the matter as A.C. No. 12323 and required the respondent to show cause. Both parties submitted position papers. The respondent resigned from his position as Court Attorney IV on November 17, 2019. The OBC recommended that the respondent be found administratively liable as a member of the Bar and be suspended for one year, and also pay the P10,000.00 fine from A.M. No. 2017-07-SC. The Petition: The Court resolved whether the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's resignation from his position as Court Attorney IV renders the administrative case moot and academic. Whether the respondent committed Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Whether the respondent, as a member of the Bar, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. What is the proper penalty to be imposed on the respondent for his administrative liabilities in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC and A.C. No. 12323.
Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OAS-SC and the OBC, respectively, except for the penalty in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC. The respondent is found GUILTY of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in A.M. No. No. 2017-07-SC and is meted a FINE of P90,000.00. In A.C. No. 12323, the respondent is found GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of resignation rendering the case moot: The Court held that the respondent's supervening resignation during the pendency of an administrative case does not prevent the Court from determining his administrative liability and imposing the proper penalty. Jurisprudence is clear that cessation from office by resignation or retirement does not dismiss the administrative complaint filed while the respondent was still in service, nor does it render the case moot and academic. Once jurisdiction has attached, it is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee is no longer in office. The administrative matter was instituted against the respondent while he was actively employed, thus his resignation does not preclude the Court from proceeding with the case and imposing sanctions if warranted. On Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The Court agreed with the OAS-SC that the respondent committed irregularities when he skirted processes relating to properties under custodia legis, specifically the subject vehicle. The Court found that the vehicle had not undergone any valid auction proceedings, as evidenced by the Notice of Levy and Sale which did not include it. Despite this, the respondent repeatedly took the vehicle in and out of court premises without the prior knowledge and approval of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). These acts constitute misconduct. However, the Court clarified that these acts were not committed in relation to his official duties as Court Attorney IV, thus they cannot be classified as Grave Misconduct or Simple Misconduct. Instead, the proper designation is Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as recommended by the OAS-SC. On violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that the respondent violated Canon 6 of the CPR, which applies to lawyers in government service. His conduct of repeatedly taking the subject vehicle out of court premises without authority violated Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct), Canon 1, and Rules 10.01 (doing falsehood or misleading the court) and 10.03 (observing rules of procedure), Canon 10. Furthermore, his actions misused court processes for personal gain, violating Rule 12.04 (misuse of court processes) of Canon 12. As an officer of the court, lawyers are expected to act with honesty and uphold the law, and the respondent failed to meet these standards. On the proper penalty for A.M. No. 2017-07-SC and A.C. No. 12323: The Court determined that the applicable rules for A.M. No. 2017-07-SC were either the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011 RRACCS) or the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, depending on which would be more favorable to the respondent. Under the 2011 RRACCS, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is a grave offense, punishable by suspension or a fine equivalent to six months' salary (P604,728.00), considering mitigating circumstances. Under the amended Rule 140, it is a serious charge, punishable by dismissal, suspension, or a fine of P100,000.00 to P200,000.00. Since dismissal and suspension are not applicable due to his resignation, only a fine could be imposed. The Court found Rule 140 less prejudicial and imposed a fine of P90,000.00, considering the mitigating circumstances of outstanding performance ratings and it being his first offense. Guided by jurisprudence, specifically Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, where a similar act of taking a vehicle under custodia legis without court authority resulted in a one-year suspension, the Court imposed the same penalty on the respondent for A.C. No. 12323. This penalty aligns with the OBC's recommendation and reflects the seriousness of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who, as a court employee, takes a vehicle under custodia legis without court authority, violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and may be disciplined as a member of the Bar even after resigning from government service. The penalty depends on the applicable rules at the time of the offense or the amended rules, whichever is more favorable to the respondent. Resignation does not moot an administrative case.