Nicanor Gatmaytan Jr., vs. Atty. Isidro Ilao (A.C. NO.

6086 : January 26, Issue:

2005) WON the commissioner was correct in dismissing outright the complaint for
lack of merit when Commissioner San Juan should have conducted an
Facts: investigation of the charged violations of the Canons of Professional
Complainant Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr., is a practicing lawyer who Responsibility by respondent pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 8 of the Rules
represented a certain Teofista Payuran in Civil Case No. 4381-P before the of Court.
Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, for cancellation of title.5
Respondent Atty. Isidro Ilao, on the other hand, was counsel for the Ruling:
respondents in the said case. Section 8 of Rule 139-B in relation to the pertinent section contained in said
Rule - - Section 5 of Rule 139-B. They provide, thus:
On 14 February 2002, during the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari,
Atty. Ilao, as counsel for Clifton Chiu,10 filed before this Court a Complaint SEC. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the
for Disbarment11 against herein complainant, Atty. Nicanor Gatmaytan, Jr., Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent,
for violations of Canons 10, 12, 15, and 19 of the Code of Professional requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If
Responsibility. On 07 March 2002, Atty. Ilao, in his personal capacity and as the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of
the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed
attorney-in-fact of his co-plaintiffs,12 filed a complaint for damages in the
by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. . . . [Emphasis ours]
RTC of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14, against herein complainant, Teofista
Payuran and Atty. Augusto Gatmaytan. SEC. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to
answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation
On 05 August 2002, herein complainant Atty. Gatmaytan, filed his own of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The
Complaint for Disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Ilao. Atty. Gatmaytan behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice,
claims that by filing the complaint for damages before the RTC of Nasugbu, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. . . .
respondent is guilty of making false representations and advice to his
Quite clearly, the above provisions plainly show two (2) modes of initiatory actions
clients, as well as committing falsehood, misleading the court and misusing
that the Investigator is empowered to take upon the complaint - either dismiss the
the Rules of Procedure.
same without delay or proceed with the investigation.

Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, on 04 April 2003, issued her Report and Verily, it is within the sound discretion of the Investigator to determine whether or
Recommendation recommending the dismissal of Atty. Gatmaytan's not the complaint is meritorious and if an investigation must indeed ensue.
complaint for lack of merit. On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration assailing the dismissal of the complaint without the In the case at bar, Commissioner San Juan did not see the need to conduct an
Commissioner conducting an investigation. The Board of Governors of the investigation because, to her mind, the instances when an investigation shall push
IBP, having already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court in through did not arise. Respondent Atty. Ilao did submit his answer to the complaint
accordance with Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, hence, no and after the exchange of pleadings between the parties, the Commissioner made
the determination that the complaint does not merit action and must therefore be
longer exercising jurisdiction over it, denied said Motion for Reconsideration
dismissed.
in a resolution dated 30 August 2003. Nevertheless, the Court, in a
resolution dated 12 January 2004, resolved to treat complainant's Motion Whether or not there is merit to respondent's and his co-plaintiffs' claim for
for Reconsideration as an appeal to the Supreme Court of the earlier damages in Civil Case No. 684 is not relevant to the instant case. As herein
resolution16 of the IBP. complainant himself pointed out, the right to litigate is guaranteed by the
Constitution and no less than the Supreme Court itself in "R&B Surety and Insurance It appears that the report and recommendation of the IBP was based merely on the
Co. v. IAC," 129 SCRA 736 stated that: Original Rollo of the case which was sent by the Court to the IBP pursuant to its
October 25, 1999 resolution. No hearing was conducted to determine the veracity
The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and of complainant’s and respondent’s respective allegations.
subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to
impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Sound principles of justice and public policy Issue: WON the procedure followed was proper?
demand that the persons shall have free resort to the courts of law for redress and
vindication of their rights without fear of later on standing trial for damages should Ruling:
their actions lose ground. In Baldomar v. Paras, 6 the Court held;

Evidently, complainant is belaboring under a misapprehension of Rule 139-B of the Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If,
Rules of Court. To the extent of being repetitive, it is only when the complaint bears at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly
merit, or when the answer fails to show that the complaint indeed lacks merit, or dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry
when respondent fails to file an answer that an investigation shall proceed. should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely
Otherwise, if the complaint is bereft of merit, either on its face or as proven by evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal
respondent's answer, it will be unjust to mandate the Investigator to conduct an investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be
investigation. heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to
appear despite reasonable notice.
Noemi Arandia vs. Atty. Ermando Magalong (Adm. Case No. 5094. August 6, 2002)
It must be emphasized that a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement
Facts: which may not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons. Thus,
Noemi Arandia filed with this Court a complaint-affidavit charging respondent Atty. Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court which outlines the procedure for
Ermando Magalong of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for making disbarment and disciplinary cases against members of the Bar, directs an
threats against her and her husband in connection with complainant’s alleged debts investigator or a panel of investigators appointed as such by the IBP Board of
to his client. Governors to investigate all complaints referred by said body to him, or to the
panel, as the case may be. In conducting an investigation, the investigator or
She alleged that she was summoned by respondent to his office, where he investigating panel must comply with the following:
threatened her that he would have her and her husband arrested if they did not
make good the checks they gave to respondent’s client, Jonelyn Bastareche. Sec. 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the
Complainant averred that respondent’s actuations surprised her, since she was not Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent,
aware of any outstanding indebtedness on her or her husband’s part in favor of Ms. requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If
Bastareche. On September 15, 1997, complainant received from respondent’s the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of
secretary respondent’s August 26, 1997 letter addressed to a certain "SPO2 the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed
Bautista/warrant officer" requesting that the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of
against complainant and her husband be held in abeyance pending the ongoing dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may
negotiations between them and his clients, the Bastareche spouses. review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within
15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint.
In the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
entitled case, it was found out that there was lack of merit thus the case was "No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance,
dismissed. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP’s resolution. settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
She alleged that she was not furnished a copy of said resolution and that it was complainant to prosecute the same.
respondent who gave her a copy thereof. Complainant further claimed that she did "x x x
not receive a copy of the Answer filed by respondent with the IBP.
"Sec. 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to
answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation When RTC Branch 35 Clerk of Court Atty. Roy P. Murallon later requested Atty.
of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The Baldado to forward to the Ozamis City RTC the original records and supporting
respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on documents on the bail bond, Atty. Baldado, by then already a practicing lawyer,
his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, disavowed the existence of the bail bond. Atty. Baldado wrote to say that per the
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. official records of Cagayan de Oro RTC, Branch 18, the bail bond did not exist, that
no approval was made by Judge Chavez, and that no order for the release of Dunhill
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the was issued. Atty. Baldado concluded that the bail bond was a forged document.
date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application. In his explanation, Atty. Palomares alleged that he was the corporate legal counsel
of Bentley House International Corporation, and when the bail application was
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the approved for P200,000.00, he requested the amount from Jonathon Stevenz and
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The corresponding Cristina Q. Romarate, Chief Operations Officer and Treasurer, respectively, of
charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which Bentley House International Corporation. Instead of giving the money, Stevenz and
shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. Romarate proposed to utilize the services of William Guialani. He acceded. Guialani
The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in then delivered the release order, which Atty. Palomares immediately presented to
accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before the the Branch 35 clerk of court of RTC Ozamis City. The clerk of court read the release
Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen order and then issued the corresponding order for the release of Dunhill Palomares.
(15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall Atty. Palomares denied any wrongdoing in connection with the submission of the
within a period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and falsified bail bond and offered, in any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash
recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for bond.
final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan held that there was no doubt that the bail bond
The Court finds that the conduct of a formal investigation is necessary for the and order of release were "fictitious." She stated that while there was no conclusive
proper resolution of the instant case. proof that Atty. Palomares had been the author of the fictitious bail and release
order, it could not be denied, however, that it was he who presented the papers to
Judge Nimfa P. Sitaca vs. Atty. Diego M. Palomares (Adm. Case No. 5285 the court. Atty. Palomares failed to satisfactorily explain, she stated, why he had to
April 14, 2004) take a circuitous route and secure the services of Guialani despite his claim that he
could have easily availed himself of the facilities of other insurance companies. She
Facts: recommended that Atty. Palomares be suspended from the practice of law for a
Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., period of eighteen (18) months. The recommendation was adopted by the IBP
for having filed a falsified bail bond. Board of Governors on 30 August 2003 in its Resolution No. XVI-2002-81.

Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Issue:
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was Criminal WON the findings made by the commissioner was proper given the fact that no
Case No. RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares, a son of Atty. Diego M. formal investigation was conducted.
Palomares, Jr., herein respondent. Sometime in September 1997, Atty. Palomares,
in representation of Dunhill, filed a bail bond of P200,000.00 to secure the latter’s Ruling:
release. The bail bond was purportedly signed and approved by the late Judge Administrative complaints for disbarment are referred to the IBP for formal
Nazar U. Chavez, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City, and investigation by the Court after an evaluation by it of the pleadings submitted. An
with it was a corresponding order of release signed by RTC Branch 18 Clerk of Court ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent fails to appear
Atty. Glenn Peter C. Baldado. When informed of the filing by Atty. Palomares of the despite reasonable notice. In this case, it would appear that no investigation, not
bail bond, ostensibly signed by Judge Chavez, Judge Sitaca approved the release of even just an ex-parte investigation, was conducted by the Commission on Bar
the accused. Discipline.
 The Court must call for the due observance of the foregoing rules, and it is thus
The prevailing procedure for investigation is that expressed in Rule 139-B of the constrained to remand the case to the IBP for further proceedings.
Rules of Court some pertinent provisions of which read: Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner vs. Atty. Luis K. Lokin Jr (477 SCRA 634, 2005)

"SEC. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. – The National Grievance Investigators Facts:
shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Luis Lokin, Jr..
the IBP Board of Governors. This sprung from the time that her father, the late Potenciano Ilusorio, engaged the
services of the law office of Lokin to represent him in the Sandiganbayan where the
"x x x xxx xxx
Republic was claiming, among other properties, shareholdings in Philippine
"SEC. 5. Service or dismissal. – If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications
shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT).
same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action,
or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not Ilusorio, with the assistance of Lokin, entered into a Compromise Agreement where
meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his Ilusorio was to get 673 POTC shares. Ilusorio-Bildner alleges that the informal
recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and gathering, through the “high-handed and deceitful maneuvers” of Lokin, was
the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the suddenly and without notice transformed into a Special Stockholders Meeting at
complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint. which directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT were elected. Her father contested the
validity of the meeting by filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission
"No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to (SEC) against Manuel Nieto, et al. who were purportedly elected directors and
prosecute the same. officers of PHILCOMSAT, in which SEC case Lokin appeared as the counsel of Nieto,
et al., contrary to his oath not to represent conflicting interests.
"x x x xxx xxx
Ilusorio, had earlier filed with the IBP a disbarment complaint. However, on account
"SEC. 8. Investigation. – Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, of the death of Ilusorio, his complaint was dismissed without prejudice to the filing
the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He of a new complaint by Ilusorio’s children. Ilusorio-Bildner now filed the complaint
shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given but the IBP Board of Governors dismissed it. No copy of the notice of resolution was
full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself
served upon petitioner. Ilusorio-Bildner, nonetheless, learned about the matter.
and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
Issue:
"The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of
its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior Whether or not Lokin was personally barred by the rules of ethics from representing
application. an interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his firm

"Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Ruling:
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge
shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the
Notwithstanding his acknowledged involvement in both the Sandiganbayan and SEC
alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of
Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure
cases, respondent denies that he was guilty of representing conflicting interests, he
set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as proffering that, in the first place, the case of Ilusorio in the Sandiganbayan “has
practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the been the personal account of Atty. Raval, separate and apart from the accounts of
IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting the law partnership.” Not only is this claim unsubstantiated, however. It is
forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme contradicted by respondent’s own evidence and statements.
Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty."
As earlier noted, respondent has stated that Ilusorio was represented by his firm in
the Sandiganbayan case. In light thereof, respondent was personally barred by the
rules of ethics from representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his
firm.

Plainly, when Lokin represented Nieto, et al. in the SEC, he was advocating an
interest hostile to the implementation of the same Compromise Agreement that he
had priorly negotiated for Ilusorio.

The Board thus erred when, while acknowledging that Ilusorio was represented by
respondent’s firm in his negotiations with the PCGG, it nonetheless maintained that
there was no conflict of interest upon a finding that the subsequent SEC case “did
not in any way involve the validity of the compromise agreement forged with the
PCGG.”