Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila
Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila
~upreme ~ourt
fflnnila
FffiST DIVISION
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
with a referral directed by the Ombudsman or any of its deputies against the
office or employe e to whom it was addressed. On October 19, 2015, a
1
Dismissal Order against Capiz Governor Victor Tanco, Sr. ( Governor Tanco)
and his son Vladimir Tanco (Vladimir) was received by the DILG Central
Office. According to the complainant, the Dismissal Order3 was served
against Mr. Vladimir Tanco on October 28, 2015, but not to his father and co-
accused Governor rranco.
I
For the above reasons, the complainant concluded that it is very clear
that Atty. Nuyda as the RD of the DILG Regional Office VI, committed a
Gross Neglect of Duty as he vehemently delayed and refused to comply with
the directive of the 0MB.
On the other 1hand, the respondent filed his Comment4 on June 2, 2016.
According to the respondent, he was just following the orders of his superior,
Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero ( Usec. Panadero) of the DILG to await
further advice on the implementation of the dismissal of Governor Tanco of
• I -
Cap1z. On October 22, 2015, Usec. Panadero wrote a Letter) dated October
22, 2015 to Assistant Ombudsman Jennifer J. Manalili seeking clarification
I
5
6
Id. at 38-39.
Id. at 9-47.
Id. at41-42.
Id. at 22-23.
~
Id. at 25-35.
Decision -3- A.C. No. 11087
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5112]
Likewise, the respondent issued two (2) other Memoranda, 8 both dated
October 23, 2015, one issued to Vladimir directing him to cease and desist
from performing the functions of the Office of the Security Officer III
immediately upon receipt of the Memorandum, and the other issued to
Governor Tanco to abide by the decision of the 0MB in the dismissal of his
son Vladimir from office.
Fmiher, the 0MB subsequently confinned that the action taken by the
DILG was correct through a Letter9 dated November 16, 2015 by Atty. M.A.
Christian 0. Uy of the 0MB, advising the DILG that the re-election of
Governor Tanco operated "as a condonation of his misconduct to the extent
of cutting off the right to remove him from office," pursuant to Aguinaldo v.
Hon. Santos. 10 Afterwards, Usec. Panadero issued a Memorandum" dated
December 11, 2015 directed to the respondent stating that because of the
Aguinaldo doctrine and the advice from the 0MB, the decision of dismissal
meted on Governor Tanco can no longer be implemented. Accordingly the
respondent filed his Compliance Report 12 on the Implementation of the
Decision of the 0MB dated June 1, 2015.
Verily, for Atty. Nuyda, he was just following orders from his superior
and the subsequent confirmation by the 0MB that the action taken by the
DILG was correct only show that he did not violate any law or rule more so
the CPR.
Atty. Nuyda filed his Position Paper 13 on February 6, 2017, while the
complainant did not. After reviewing the records of the case, the IBP-CBD
decided not to conduct any fmiher clarificatory hearing and considered the
matter submitted for report and recommendation.
Id. at 38-40.
9
Id. at 45.
10
287 Phil. 851, 858 (1992).
II
Rollo, pp. 43-44.
12
Id. at 47.
13
Id. at 82-94.
Decision -4- A.C. No. 11087
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5112]
Our Ruling
14
Id. at 162-1 65.
15
Id. at 160.
16
Cabasv. Atty. S11susco, eta!., 787 Ph il. 167, 174(2016).
Decision -5- AC. No. 11087
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5112]
As noted by the IBP, Atty. Nuyda simply followed the directive given
to him by his superior at the DILG to await fmiher advice on the dismissal of
Governor Tanco. In addition, there was never any intentional or willful
disobedience to the decision of the 0MB, as the latter, in fact, eventually
confirmed that its order dismissing Governor Tanco from service can no
longer be implemented. Thus, there is no gross neglect of duty on the paii of
Atty. Nuyda.
In the present case, the herein complainant was clearly misguided and
did not even present a valid argument. Even without the presumption that an
attorney as an officer of the Comi have performed his duties in accordance
with his oath, it is plain and logical that the respondent only followed the
protocol in implementing the subject Decision of the 0MB. The said protocol
is pursuant to the standing arrangement between the DILG and the 0MB
where officials of the DILG were advised to seek prior clarification with the
0MB should there be issues that arise on the implementation of the latter's
17
18
19
Id. at 173- 174.
Id. at 174.
Lanuza v . Atly. Magsalin fl/, et al., 749 Phil. 104, 112 (20 14).
tlf
., ' . ..
Decision -6- A.C. No. 11087
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5112]
decisions. Thus, his actions were done within the authority granted to him
and the laws.
While the Court will not avoid its responsibility in meting out the
proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn
duties, the Court will not wield its axe against those the accusations against
whom are not indubitably proven.20 Much less, in this case where the
accusations are obviously baseless.
SO ORDERED.
.PERALTA
WE CONCUR:
AMY
20
Id. at 113.