[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 178-2003, December 17, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 178-2003, December 17, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 178-2003, December 17, 2003 ]

Untitled Document

TO:

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: DISBARMENT OF ATTY. FELINA S. DASIG

For information and guidance of alt concerned, quoted hereunder is the Decision of the Court En Bane dated 1 April 2003 in Administrative Case No. 4984 entitled "Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al. vs. Atty. Felina Dasig."

"This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig [1] , an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney's Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.

Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint- Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 199S. complainants allege that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that>are grounds for disbarment under Section 27 [2] , Rule 138 of the Rules of' Court, to wit;

a) Sometime in August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent's designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Education Center in Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED...

b) Likewise, sometime in July to August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent's designation as Officer-In- Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of , P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED...

c) Likewise, sometime in September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent's designation as Officer-In- Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.. .In addition, Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje to register her birth anew with full knowledge of the existence of a prior registration...

d). Likewise, sometime in August to September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondent's designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was subsequently confirmed to be Pl5,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED ...In addition, the Respondent even suggested to Ms. Ng to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen by Respondent Dasig to facilitate the application for correction of name [3] .

Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed. [4]

Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 [5] of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts owing to "Boreta Tire Supply" and "Nova's Lining Brake & Clutch" as evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, [6] the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent. [7]

Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion andRodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronations on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, docketed as Criminal Case No. 86052, was lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36. [8]

Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for herself. [9]

In our resolution of February 3, 1999, we required respondent to file a Comment on the charges. [10] A copy of said resolution was sent to the respondent at her address at Blk. 4 7 Lot 12, Hobart H Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City, only to be returned to this Court with the notation "Unclaimed." [11]

On July 5, 1999, we directed that a copy of the resolution of February 3, 1999, be served by registered mail to respondent at her office address in CHED.

In a letter dated August 28, 2000, the Postmaster of the Ortigas Center Post Office' informed the Court that the said mail matter had been delivered to, received by, and signed for by one Antonio Molon, an authorized agent of respondent on August 27,1999. [12]

On November 22. 2000, we granted complainant's motion to refer the complaint to the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

In its Older dated February 6, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar 1 Discipline directed respondent to submit her Answer to the Complaint, failing which she would be considered in default and die case beard ex parte Respondent failed to heed said order and on January 8, 2007, the Commission directed her anew to file her Answer, but again she faiied to comply with the directive. As a result, the Commission ruled that she had waived her right lo file her Comment or Answer to the Complaint end the case was mainly resolved on the basis of rite documents submitted and on record

In its report and recommendation, dated April 5, 2002, the EBP Commission on Bar Discipline staled as follows.

From the foregoing evidence on record, il can be concluded that respondent in violation of her oath as a government official and as a member of the Ear, indeed made unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from certain people who bad pending applications, I request before her office in exchange for her promise to act favorably on said application/requests. Clearly, respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to die detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education.

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended thai respondent be suspended from the practice of law far that maximum period allowable of Three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in the tuture will be a ground for disbarment of respondent

On August, 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393, the full text of which reads as follows:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation, of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, hereia made part of ihis Resohdion/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommeadation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the and reputation of the Commission on Higher Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice law for three (3) years. [13]

At the threshold is the query of whether attorney-at-law, as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance, considering, that her position, at the tune of filing of the complaint, was "Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards, CHED."

Generally speaking, a. lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Bar. [14] official. However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. [15]

In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C Mitigation, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her faiorable action on then pending apphcations or requests before her office. The evidence remains unrefutted. given the respondent's failure, despite the opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. We find that respondents misconduct is a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect ha qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of as consideration for the approval of applications and awaiting action by her office.

The Attorney's Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation, thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action The Attorney's Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility [16] . Respondent's demands for bums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or request

before her office violates such duty, and rum afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar, Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professronal Responsibility.

A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988. was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service This is clear from Canon 6 [17] of said Code Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.

Respondent's attmpts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule l.01 [18] of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 [19] of the Code which bar lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office, Respondent's conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyer, specially from one occupying a high public office For a lawyer in public is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in service is a keeper of the pubhc faith and is burdened with degree of social responsibility, pethaps higher Tlian her brethren in private practice.

For bar violation of the Attorney's Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 [20] and Rule 103 of Canon l and Rule 6 02 and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC. Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three years' suspension from membership in the Bar it well is the practice of law, as the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment Her nun? shall be stticken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ally. Felina S Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney's Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responaibiliy, nod is hereby ordered DISBARRED .

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Confidant to be spread on the Tecords of the respondent, as as to this Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for to all courts throughout the country.

x x x."

In a resolution dated 17 June 2003 in the saint administrative case, the Court denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent.

The Decision was served upon respondent on July 13, 1003.

__ 17__ December 2003.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Court Administrator

[1] AdrnittedtotheBar, May30, 1986.Per l998 Law LIST, p. 232.

[2] SEC. 27, Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court, grounds Therefore.- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedient of any lawful order of a superior court, or for any corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

[3] Rollo p.3

[4] These include: Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R Coronation, Rodrigo R. Coranacion, Jr., and Jose R. Rabalo, IS. Ho. 96-19774 for Perjury, False Testimony, Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R Coronacion and Rodrigo R Coronation, Jr., 1.5. No. 9d :25S75 for Oral Defamation and Unjust Vexation, Felins S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Francis Lacand'azo, Mark Imperio and Michael Natnoca, IS. No. 96-27189 for Libel; Felina S. Dasig and Victor Alba v. Celedonia R Coronacion, Rodrigo R, Coronacion, IS. No. 57-3026 for Grave Oral Defamation, Felina S. Dasig v. Celedonia Coronacion, Francis lacandazo, Mark Imperio and Michael Namoca, IS. No. 96-27189, for violation of Art 29Q, Rev. Penal Code; Felina S. Dasig. Asuncion Lacandazo and Francis lacandaM, IS. No. 96-27189 for Grass Oral Defamation, Felian S Dasig and Victor Alba v. Ma. Teresa Galdon Lingal, IS. 9(5-25870 for Oral Defamation, Threat, Felma 5. Dasig and Victcr Alba vs. Ruel Martin and Jean Martin, I.S. No. 97 -348 for Libel; Felina 5. Easig v. Celedqnia Coronacion, IS. No. &7-7218 for Perjury. Libel; and Felina S. Dasig vs. Francis Lacandazo,MichaplNamocaandMark.Itnperio,IS. No. 97-8364 for Perjury.

[5] SEC. 36. Disciplina General Provisions, x x x

[6] Rollo,pp, 22-24.

[7] Id. At 26-27.

[8] Id. At 28-30.

[9] Id at 32-35.

[10] Id At 36.

[11] Id At 47.

[12] Id. At 57.

[13] Id. At 61.

[14] Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, A.M. No. R-705-RTJ, 23 August 1989, 176 SCRA 634, 649.

[15] Dinsay v. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995, 27 November 1996, 264 SCRA 703, 706, Collantes v. Renomeron, A.C. No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584, 587.

[16] Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

[17] CANON 6. - These Canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

[18] Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

[19] Rule 6.02. - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, not allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

[20] CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.