Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite v. Mas
CLARIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for Laguna detailed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, was assigned to conduct a preliminary investigation for an Estafa case (I.S. No. 1V-03-INV-09A-0419) filed by Lauro Sarte and Anabelle Sarte Gaña. On March 19, 2009, during the scheduled preliminary investigation, Atty. Mas allegedly assured Sarte, Gaña, and their aunt Elvira Shibuya that he would resolve the case in their favor and with dispatch. He then inquired if they could pay PHP 150,000.00 as "docket fees," despite the complainants having already paid PHP 6,000.00. Atty. Mas then pretended to call the cashier to haggle for a reduction, subsequently telling them they only needed to pay PHP 58,000.00. He instructed them not to talk to anyone in the office, falsely representing that their opponent was "well connected" and he did not want other prosecutors to negotiate with him. On March 20, 2009, Sarte, Gaña, and Shibuya returned, and Atty. Mas received the PHP 58,000.00 from Anabelle Sarte Gaña. He did not issue a receipt and ceased communication with them. Procedural History: The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, through then Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco, lodged a disbarment suit against Atty. Mas for deceit, gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of the lawyer's oath and oath of office. Atty. Mas failed to comply with the Court's orders to comment, and his whereabouts became unknown, with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) unable to locate him. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Mas liable for extortion, deceitful, and scandalous acts, but recommended dismissal for being moot and academic as Atty. Mas was already disbarred in A.C. No. 8010 (Stemmerik v. Mas). The IBP Board of Governors approved the finding of liability but modified the recommendation to disbarment "if and when the disbarment of Atty. Leonuel N. Mas had been lifted." The Petition: The administrative controversy reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's findings and recommendations. The core issue for the Court was whether Atty. Mas should be disbarred anew, considering his previous disbarment, and the appropriate penalty or action to be taken.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas was properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings against him. Whether respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of the lawyer's oath and oath of office. What is the proper penalty to be imposed upon respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, considering his previous disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Leonuel N. Mas GUILTY of violating his oath of office, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty of disbarment. However, considering his previous disbarment, the penalty of disbarment anew can no longer be imposed. Nonetheless, in view of his earlier disbarment and being a repeat offender, he is adjudged to be ineligible for judicial clemency. Respondent is ORDERED to return to Anabelle Sarte Gaña, Lauro Sarte, and Elvira Shibuya the amount of PHP 58,000.00, which he unlawfully demanded and received from them, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from his receipt of this Decision until full payment. Respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court the proof of payment of the amount within 10 days from payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court echoed with approbation its pronouncement in Stemmerik v. Mas, where the respondent was previously disbarred, stating that a lawyer should not be allowed to benefit from a "disappearing act." A lawyer cannot defeat the Court's jurisdiction or evade administrative liability by merely concealing their whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders and processes on respondent's office was deemed sufficient notice to him. The Court emphasized that lawyers must update their records with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) regarding any change in office or residential address and other contact details. In cases where such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the address appearing in the IBP National Office records constitutes sufficient notice for administrative proceedings. Therefore, despite Atty. Mas's unknown whereabouts, he was considered to have received proper notice. On Issue 2: The Court found no question as to respondent's guilt, as it was clear from the records that he extorted money from unsuspecting litigants and concocted a web of lies to deceive them. This behavior constitutes unlawful conduct by a public officer in the discharge of his official duties, as he unlawfully and wrongfully used his station to procure benefit for himself. Applying Neri v. Office of the Ombudsman, this act squarely falls under the definition of "corruption." Furthermore, his actions demonstrate "dishonesty," defined in In re Ong as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. Atty. Mas not only failed to uphold his duty as a prosecutor but also violated his lawyer's oath and ran afoul of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), specifically Canon II, Sections 1, 2, and 28, which mandate propriety, honesty, and dignified conduct for lawyers, especially those in government service. On Issue 3: The Court acknowledged that Atty. Mas's condemnable acts in this case merit the maximum penalty of disbarment. However, it applied the established principle that double disbarment is not imposed in this jurisdiction, as reiterated in Punla v. Maravilla-Ona and Contreras v. Venida. The rationale is that once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no further penalty that can be imposed regarding their privilege to practice law. Nevertheless, pursuant to Section 42, Canon VI on Accountability under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), the corresponding penalty for the new charge, which would have been disbarment, must be recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). This record will be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer subsequently file a petition for reinstatement. Given his status as a repeat offender and his earlier disbarment, the Court explicitly adjudged him to be ineligible for judicial clemency.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege subject to the inherent regulatory power of the Court, burdened with conditions requiring lawyers to comply with rigid standards, including mental fitness, maintenance of the highest level of morality, and full compliance with the rules of the legal profession. Misconduct, particularly grave misconduct, involves unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer directly connected to official duties, entailing elements of corruption, willful intent to transgress the law, or disregard of established rules. While double disbarment is not imposed in this jurisdiction, a finding of guilt for a new charge that would otherwise merit disbarment, against a previously disbarred lawyer, shall be recorded in their personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and considered in any future application for judicial clemency.