Ac 10294 2022
Ac 10294 2022
,_,_+i------
g,up:rtme «:.ourt
:!flflan ila
EN BANC
GESMUNDO, CJ,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
- versus - LOPEZ, M. V.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J. Y.,
DIMAAMPAO,
MARQUEZ, and
KHO, JR.
SINGH,JJ
PERCURIAM:
1
Rollo, pp. 169-170.
2 Id. at 17.1-179.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 10294
The present case arose from a Complaint3 dated November 29, 2013, filed
by Maryanne Merriam B. Guevarra-Castil (Maryanne), accusing her husband,
Orlando L. Castil, Jr. (Orlando), and Atty. Trinidad, of maintaining an extra-
marital affair.
Maryanne narrated that Atty. Trinidad and Orlando are both officers of the
Philippine National Police (PNP), and got to know each other by reason of their
work. Several years back, Maryanne staited receiving reports from friends and
Orlando's co-workers of the pair's supposed fling. Consumed by her deep love
for Orlando, Maryanne chose to shrug off these rumors and discount them as
exactly that: rumors.
Maryanne recounted that after the incident, her marriage with Orlando
started falling apart. However, her nightniare did not end there. One day, as she
was cleaning their room, Maryanne stumbled upon a birth certificate. This
surprised her because she and Orlando do not have any children. Upon perusal,
Maryanne was shocked to see the child's name - and the indicated parents -
Atty. Trinidad and Orlando. The birth certificate also contained an "Affidavit
In her defense, Atty. Trinidad contended that she does not personally know
Maryanne, nor does she have any knowledge of the latter's relationship with
Orlando. Atty. Trinidad claimed that she only got to know of Maryanne being
the wife of Orlando, when she staited receiving complaints from the former.
She likewise vehemently denied that she communicated with Maryanne, and
asserted that the complaint filed against her is based on nothing but hearsay,
self-serving claims, and illegally obtained documentary evidence. Neve1theless,
Atty. Trinidad admitted that she had "committed some acts which are not to be
proud of." 7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMJTTED. 9
7
Id. at 35.
8
Id. at 171-179.
9
Id. at 179.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 10294
In its Resolution 10 dated May 27, 2017, the IBP Board approved the report
and recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution partly reads:
Issue
The sole issue for the resolution of the Court is whether Atty. Trinidad
should be disbarred for the acts complained of.
Our Ruling
Before We delve into the merits of the present case, the Court notes that
Atty. Trinidad, aside from being a lawyer, is also a member of the PNP. In the
past, this Court has made varying rulings concerning Our jurisdiction over
disciplinary cases involving government lawyers. Necessarily, We must
determine first if this Court has jurisdiction over the present case; and to answer
this issue, a cursory review of these rulings must be done.
In Fuji v. Dela Cruz 14 (Fuji), We held that generally, this Court defers from
taking cognizance of disbarment complaints against lawyers in government
service. Instead, the complaint is referred to either the proper administrative
body that has disciplinary authority over the erring government lawyer, or the
Ombudsman.
10 ld.atl69-]70.
11
Id. at 169.
12
ld. at 184--193.
13
Id. at 238-239.
14
807 Phil. l, 8 (2017).
15 803 Phil. 85 (2017).
Decision 5 A.C. No. 10294
Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being
charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair or discriminatory, involving their
official functions during their tenure, the present case should be resolved by the
Office of the Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency. Indeed, the IBP
has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative
offenses involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall
under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman.
Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP asserts jurisdiction and
decides agai1ist a government lawyer, while the disciplinary authority finds in
favor of the government lawyer. 19
The common element in Fuji, Alicias, Trovela, and Spouses Bujfe, which
led to the dismissal of the disbarment cases in these rulings, is the fact that the
government lawyers concerned committed acts and omissions primarily
involving their official duties. While these respondents are lawyers, their
offenses had more to do with their gove111ment position, and less with them
being lawyers. In other words, they were charged in their capacity as public
servants, and not as members of the Bar.
Despite the foregoing, the Court has nevertheless refused to shirk away
from its constitutional mandate to regulate the admission to, and the practice of
law, which necessarily includes the authority to discipline, suspend, or even
disbar misbehaving members of the legal profession, whenever proper and
called for. Indeed, "if the government official's misconduct is of such character
as to affect his [or her] qualification as a lawyer[,] or to show moral
delinquency, he [or she] may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
ground." 20
16 Id. at 92.
17 832 Phil. I (20 I 8).
13 797 Phil. 143 (2016).
19 Id. at 144.
20
Sismaet v. Cruzabra, A.C. No. 5001, September 7, 2020, citing O/azo v . .Justice Tinga (Ret.), 65 I Phil. 290
(2010).
Decision 6 A.C. No. 10294
xxxx
Pursuant to this mandate, the Court has codified conditions before one may
be admitted to the practice of law, as well as ethical conduct legal practitioners
must always abide to.Foremost of these are Rule 13 8 (Attorneys and Admission
to the Bar), and Rule 139-B (Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys) of the
Rules of Court, as well as the Lawyer's Oath, and the CPR. Indeed, compliance
with these issuances are so strictly enforced that our legal landscape is replete
with cases stripping undeserving lawyers of their licenses to practice law.
21
Col/antes v. Renomeron, 277 Phil 668 (1991 ); Abella v. Barrios, Jr., 711 Phil. 363 (2013).
22
See Col/antes v. Renomeron, supra.
Decision 7 A.C. No. 10294
Unlike regular civil and criminal cases, disbarment proceedings are sui
generis in character, and are not meant to inflict criminal or civil sanctions.
Instead, the main question to be resolved is whether the lawyer involved is still
fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation ofjustice. 23
In Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Raco Corona, 24 the Court had the
occasion to discuss the nature of an impeachment proceeding:
In the same vein, impeachment does not imply immunity from court
processes, nor does it preclude other forms of discipline.
xxxx
23
Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471,475 (2006).
" A.M No. 20-07-10-SC, January 12, 2021.
2, Id.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 10294
Then, in order to do away with the ostensible confusion, and the unethical
practice of effective forum shopping, taking into account the suggestions of
Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe during the deliberations on
this case, the Court hereby lays the following rules in the filing and handling of
complaints against government lawyers, to serve as guidelines for both the
bench and the bar:
3. If multiple complaints have been filed, the process shall be the same.
_, - A.C. No. I 0294
Decision 9
In the event that paragraph 2b shall apply, and results in a situation where
one or more complaint/s have been dismissed and referred to the appropriate
goven1ment office or the Ombudsman, and one or more complaint/s have been
retained by this Court, the cases shall proceed independently from one another.
We now apply these guidelines and principles to the present case. To recap,
Maryanne specifically alleged in her complaint the following:
While it is mentioned that Atty. Trinidad is a police officer, and that she
allegedly threatened to leverage her position to dissuade Maryanne from
pursuing the complaint, that is not the principal act complained of. Instead,
Maryanne complained of Atty. Trinidad's illicit affair with Orlando -
something which is totally unrelated to, and may be accomplished, even without
Atty. Trinidad's position in the PNP. In other words, Atty. Trinidad was not
acting as a police officer when she allegedly committed the deed.
Assuming that these allegations are true, do they make Atty. Trinidad unfit
to be a member of the legal profession? We answer in the positive. Thus, We
hold that this Court has jurisdiction to resolve the present disbarment complaint.
Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
29
AC. No. 10731, October 5, 2021, citing Panagsagan v. Panagsagan, A.C. No. 7733, October I, 2019.
so Id.
31
482 Phil. 64 (2004).
32
ld.at71.
33
A.C. No. 8700, September 8, 2020.
' Decision 11 A.C. No. 10294
While Atty. Trinidad claims that the pieces of evidence, such as the
photographs, submitted by Maryanne were illegally obtained and
unauthenticated, she nevertheless failed to dispute the same on their merits.
Further, Atty. Trinidad's denial of her relationship with Orlando is unsupported
by even the slightest hint of proof. Lastly and most importantly, Atty. Trinidad
never entertained the issue of the bitth certificate containing the details of their
love-child, and instead acted as if the document does not exist. The other
allegations - such as the public flaunting of their adulterous fli1tations, and the
abandonment by Orlando of his family to live with Atty. Trinidad - all remain
unanswered. In our view, this inaction and reticence on the pait of Atty.
Trinidad signal nothing but guilt and shame for the despicable acts she had
committed. Instead, all that Atty. Trinidad has to say for herself is that she is a
"God-fearing mother, who worked very hard for the future of her children." 36
Unfortunately for Atty. Trinidad, God does not tolerate extra-marital affairs,
and neither does this Court.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to: (a) the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as member of the
Bar; (b) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance;
and, ( c) the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all comts
throughout the country for their information and guidance.
34
Id.
35
Rollo, p. 178.
36
Id. at 158.
Decision 12 AC. No. 10294
SO ORDERED.
~~
~ _,,,..""~';._RViC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
~ Associate Justice
It,.~
AMY C. LAz#o-JAVIER
Associate Justice
HENR~TNTING
Associate Justice
Decision 13 A.C. No. 10294
Associate Justice
JHOSE~OPEZ
Ass ciate Justice Associate Justice
/QU;d# ~ ' /
J~IDASP.MARQUEZ
"Associate Justice
~-/·
~itiio~ /
Associate Justic; - ~