vitriolo vs dasig - canon 6

8/12/2019 Vitriolo vs Dasig - Canon 6

1/3

1

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4984. April 1, 2003]

ATTY.JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA,ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDADARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIACORONACION, and JOSE RABALO, complainants,vs. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent .

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

This is an administrative case for disbarmentfiled against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, [1] an official ofthe Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The

charge involves gross misconduct of respondent inviolation of the Attorneys Oath for having used herpublic office to secure financial spoils to thedetriment of the dignity and reputation of theCHED.

Almost all complainants in the instant caseare high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their swornComplaint-Affidavit filed with this Court onDecember 4, 1998, complainants allege thatrespondent, while she was OIC of Legal AffairsService, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for

disbarment under Section 27, [2] Rule 138 of theRules of Court, to wit:

a) Sometime in August 1998 and during the effectivityof Respondents designation as Officer -in-Chargeof Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded fromBetty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady ofMariazel Educational Center in Novaliches, QuezonCity, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reducedto P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application forcorrection of name then pending before the LegalAffairs Service, CHED...

b) Likewise, sometime in July to August 1998 and duringthe effectivity of Resp ondents designation asOfficer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, astudent, the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 forfacilitation of her application for correction ofname then pending before the Legal AffairsService, CHED

c) Likewise, sometime in September 1998 and duringthe effectivity of Respondents designation asOfficer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,

she demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, theamount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of herapplication for correction of name then pendingbefore the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. . . Inaddition, Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje toregister her birth anew with full knowledge of the

existence of a prior registration

d) Likewise, sometime in August to September 1998and during the effectivity of Respondentsdesignation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal AffairsService, CHED, she demanded from Jacqueline N.Ng, a student, a considerable amount which wassubsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initialfee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of herapplication for correction of name then pendingbefore the Legal Affairs Service, CHED... In addition,the Respondent even suggested to Ms. Ng to hire alawyer who shall be chosen by Respondent Dasigto facilitate the application for correction ofname. [3]

Complainants likewise aver that respondentviolated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven(11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suitsbefore 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] ofPresidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure topay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply andNovas Lining Brake & Clutch as evidenced bythe dishonored checks she issued, [6] the complaintsheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent. [7]

Complainants also allege that respondentinstigated the commission of a crime againstcomplainant Celedonia R. Coronacion andRodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouragedand ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard ofthe Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, todraw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on theevening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident,a complaint for grave threats against therespondent and her son, docketed as CriminalCase No. 86052, was lodged with the MetropolitanTrial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36. [8]

Finally, complainants allege that respondentauthored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada

a libelous and unfair report, which maligned thegood names and reputation of no less than eleven(11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her illmotive of preventing their re-appointment and withthe end view of securing an appointment forherself. [9]

In our resolution of February 3, 1999, werequired respondent to file a Comment on thecharges. [10] A copy of said resolution was sent tothe respondent at her address at Blk. 4, Lot 12,Hobart II Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City, onlyto be returned to this Court with the notationUnclaimed. [11]

On July 5 , 1999, we directed that a copy ofthe resolution of February 3, 1999, be served byregistered mail to respondent at her office address


2/3

2

in CHED.

In a letter dated August 28, 2000, thePostmaster of the Ortigas Center Post Officeinformed the Court that the said mail matter hadbeen delivered to, received by, and signed for byone Antonio Molon, an authorized agent ofrespondent on August 27, 1999. [12]

On November 22, 2000, we grantedcomplainants motion to refer the complaint to theCommission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) for investigation, report, andrecommendation.

In its order dated February 6, 2001, the IBPCommission on Bar Discipline directed respondentto submit her Answer to the Complaint, failingwhich she would be considered in default and thecase heard ex parte. Respondent failed to heed

said order and on January 8, 2002, the Commissiondirected her anew to file her Answer, but again shefailed to comply with the directive. As a result, theCommission ruled that she had waived her right tofile her Comment or Answer to the Complaint andthe case was mainly resolved on the basis of thedocuments submitted and on record.

In its report and recommendation, dated April5 , 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline statedas follows:

From the foregoing evidence on record, it can be

concluded that respondent in violation of her oathas a government official and as a member of theBar, indeed made unlawful demands or attemptedto extort money from certain people who hadpending applications/requests before her office inexchange for her promise to act favorably on saidapplications/requests. Clearly, respondentunlawfully used her public office in order to securefinancial spoils to the detriment of the dignity andreputation of the Commission on Higher Education.

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended thatrespondent be suspended from the practice of lawfor the maximum period allowable of three (3)years with a further warning that similar action inthe future will be a ground for disbarment ofrespondent.

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

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is herebyADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and

Recommendation of the InvestigatingCommissioner of the above-entitled case, hereinmade part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A:;and, finding the recommendation fully supportedby the evidence on record and the applicable

laws and rules; and considering that respondentunlawfully used her public office in order to securefinancial spoils to the detriment of the dignity andreputation of the Commission on Higher Education,Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practiceof law for three (3) years. [13]

At the threshold is the query of whetherrespondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge(OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplinedby this Court for her malfeasance, considering thather position, at the time of filing of the complaint,was Chief Education Program Specialist, StandardsDevelopment Division, Office of Programs andStandards, CHED.

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds agovernment office may not be disciplined as amember of the Bar for misconduct in the dischargeof his duties as a government official. [14] However,if said misconduct as a government official alsoconstitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, thenhe may be disciplined by this Court as a member ofthe Bar. [15]

In this case, the record shows that therespondent, on various occasions, during her tenureas OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extortfrom Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre,Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums ofmoney as consideration for her favorable action ontheir pending applications or requests before her

office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given theres pondents failure, despite the opportunitiesafforded her by this Court and the IBP Commissionon Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. Wefind that respondents misconduct as a lawyer ofthe CHED is of such a character as to affect herqualification as a member of the Bar, for as alawyer, she ought to have known that it waspatently unethical and illegal for her to demandsums of money as consideration for the approval ofapplications and requests awaiting action by heroffice.

The Attorneys Oath is the source of theobligations and duties of every lawyer and anyviolation thereof is a ground for disbarment,suspension, or other disciplinary action. TheAttorneys Oath imposes upon every member ofthe bar the duty to delay no man for money ormalice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility. [16] Respondents demands for sums of money tofacilitate the processing of pending applications orrequests before her office violates such duty, andruns afoul of the oath she took when admitted tothe Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A member of the Bar who assumes publicoffice does not shed his professional obligations.


3/3

vitriolo vs dasig - canon 6

Documents