.., I

~hrii; af tqe 'qUippimJi~uprmu QImrl

®£fiu of tqe ct!aurtj\mninistrntnr,#lOmita

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2003

TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SA1\TDIGA.J.\TJ3AYAN, COURTOF TAX APPEALS, REGIONP.j. TRIAL COURTS,SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, IVlETROPOLITAN TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIP ,'-\1, TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUITTRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THEOFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLICDEFENDERS OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED B,LI,ROFTHE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRi\CTICE OF LAW OFATTYNAPOLEONCORRAL

For the information and guidance of;ill concemed, quoted hereunderis the decision of the Court's First Division in Administrative Case No. 3548entitled "Jose A. Rivera vs. Atty. Napoleon Conal" ddted July 4, 2002, towit:

"On September 1, 1990, 1 Jose A Rivera, instituted aComplaint for Disbatmene charging Atty. Napoleon Conal,vith Malpractice and Conduct Unbecoming a IVlember of thePhilippine Bar. x x x

x x x

Respondent's claim that he was not afforded due processdeserves· SCatlt consideration. The essence of due process issimply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied toadministrative proceedings, an oppoJ1unity to seek areconsideration of the action or mling complained 0/

8 In fact -

, ... a respondent in an administrdtiveproceeding is not entitled to be infonned of thetffidings and recommendations of any investigatingcommittee cre3ted to inquire into charges filedagainst him. He is entitled only to the

t Rollo, p. 11 Ibid, p. 1-3B Vda de Dela Cruz II~. Abille, 352 SCRA691, 698 (2001). citing Sunsent View Condominiurn Corp. 'I.

NLl{C, 228 SCRA..466, 472 (1993), citing Bautista II. Seo·etary of Labor, 196 SCRA470 (1991)

I. '.

administrative decision based on subskl1ltialevidence made of record, and a reasonableopp01tunity to meet the ch~rges and the evidencepresented ag~inst him during the hearings of the. .. ..,011lvestlgatmgconml1ttee.-

xxx

The quintessence of due process is simply that a party beafforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied toadministrative proceedings, an oppoltunity to e;':p1ainone's sideand to adduce any evidence he may have in SUPPOlt of hisdefense.II Entrenched is the rule that due process doe notnecessarily mean or require a hearing but simply a reasonableopportunity or a right to be heard or, as applied toac1ministl-ativeproceedings and oppOltunity to e).'P1ainone'sside.12 \N'here-UWOltUnityto be heard either through oralarguments or pleadin';!;s is accorded, there is no denial of due

13 '-process.

In his repOlt, the Investigating Commissioner pointed outthat the couectioll introduced by respondent was made not toretlect tile t1lltllbut to mislead the trial COUltinto believing thatthe notice of appeal ,vas filed within the reglement~1' periodThe Decision rendered in Civil Case No. 17473 ,vas dulyreceived by a celtain i\nnaliza Superio, the secret~)' ofrespondent, on Febnl~)' 22, 1990. Respondent filed the Noticeof Appeal on March 13, 1990which was clearly out oftime. Toextricate himself from such predicament, respondent altered thedate when he allegedly received the Decis10n from Febru~)'23, 1990 to Febru~)' 29, 1990 in the calendar, he sought tochange the date again to February 28, 1990 by me~lS of a"reply to Plaintiffs Manifestation."

x x x

The prim~ objective of administrative cases against1a'v1'ers is not only to punish and discipline the erringindividualla\vyers but also to safeguard the administration ofjustice by protecting tile courts and the public from themisconduct of lawyers, and to remove tram the legal professionpersons whose utter disregard of their la\v1'er's oatil haveproven tllem unfit to continue disch~-ging tlle 11ustreposed in

9 Pefianco v. Maral, 322 SCRA439, 449 ("2000), citing Ruiz v. Drilon, 209 SCRll.695 (1992)II PAL V> NLRC, 337 SCRP.286 (2000), Orola v>. AloTJera, 335 SCRu..609 (2000)12 Aparente, Sr. V5, NLRC, 331 SCRA 82, 89-9() (2.000), citing National Sertliconductor (HK) DistributionLtd v. NLRC 291 SCRo..348, 354 (1998); Rartloran TJ.Jardine CMG Life Insurance Company, 326 SCP,_A209,220 (2000)13 Gacutana-Fraile v. Domingo, 348 SC'R.Il.4 14 (2000), citing Alba v. Niforreda, 254 SCRt..

.•.

-

, .

tllem as members of the baL 15 A lawyer may be disb<rrred orsU~"'Pen(1edfor misconduct, whetller in his profess:ion31 orprivate capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moralcharacter, honesty, probity and good demeanor or unWortllY to

. ffi 'tl rt16contume as an 0 cer ot Ie cou .

Section 27, Rule 138 of tlle Revised Rules of COUltprovides tllat a member of tlle B<rr may be disbarred orsuspended from his office as attorney on the follo1Ninggrounds,to 1Nit: 1] deceit; 2] malpractice or otller gross misconduct inoffice; 3] grossly inunoral conduct; 4] conviction of a crimeinvolving moral turpitude; 5] violation of tlle lawyer's oath; 6]"ril1fu1disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and7] willfully appearini as an attomey for--a- ·p3tt},WitllOl1.tautllority .

While the prevailing facts of tlle case do not warrant sosevere a penalty as disbarment, tlle inherent power of tlle Courtto discipline an errant member of the B<rrmust, nonetheless, beexercised it can not be denied that respondent has violated hissolemn oath as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or1"1 d j'7"(eCelttu. con uct. .

The relevant rules to tlle case at bar are Rilles 1.0 landRille 19.01 of tlle Code of Professional ReSPOlb-ibility. Rille1.0 1 states in no unceltain terms that: "A lawyer shall notengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."More specifically, Rule 19.01 mandates that "a lawyer shallemploy only fair and honest means to attain the lawfulobjectives of his client and shall not present, pa1ticipate orUu-eaten to present unfounded cluninal ch<rrges to obtaininlproper advantage in any case or proceeding."

The Court" can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to atall times uphold tlle integrity a11d dignity of tlle legalprofession. He can do t1l:isby faitllfu11yperforming 1}isduties tosociety, to tlle bar, to tlle courts and to his clients.lo Along tllesame vein, in Ong v. Atty. Elpidio D. Unto,19 tlle COUlt mledtllat "The etlues oftlle legal profession rightly enjoin la"'J'ers toact witll the highest standards of t1lltllfulness, fair play andnobility in the course of lus practice of law. A lawyer may bedisciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whetller in lus

15 Sevilla v. Salubre, 348 SC'RA 592, 599 (lOOO)1& Calub v. Suller, 323 SCRA556, 560 (2000)11 Alitagtag v. p.ny. Virgilio R Garcia, AC. No. 4738,6 February 2002, citing Rule 101, Code ofProfe"ional Re,pon,ibility18 Reye, v. Atty. Rolando Javier, AC. No. 5574, 1 February 2002-19 AC.No.2417,6Febru81y2002

...professional or privat.e capacity.2o Public confidence in the lawand lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improperconduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should actand comp01t himself in such a matUler that would P.l:·omotepublic confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.2l

By altering the material elates to make it appear that theNoti~e of Appeal was time!y filed, res~ondent committed ~ actof diShonesty. Under pertment rules,· d1shonesty constltutesgrave misco;lduct upon which the Court, in a recent case,23imposed a one-year suspension on respondent therein forinserting in the records of the case a ce1tification of non- tbnunshopping atld making it appeat· that the same was already pattof such records at the time the complaint was filed. A one-yearsuspension was similarly imposed on respondent in Reyes v.Atty. Rolando Javier24 for deceiving his client into believingthat he filed the petition on time when in fact it ,vas filed on amuch later date. It should be stressed that brazenly res01ting tosuch a legal subterfuge to mislead the court and to cover up forhis failings toward his client is not only a disgracefulindictment on respondent's moral fiber and personal fitness tohis calling as a lawyer. It is also an embatTassment to hisbrethren in the Bar. Such misconduct WatTatlts a similar penaltyfor the COUlt Catl not tolerat.e any misconduct that tends tobesmirch the fair natue of atl honorable profession.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondentAtty. Napoleon Conal is SUSPENDED from the practice oflaw for ONE (1) year and STERNLY WARNED that arepetition of tile same or similat· offense ,,,,illbe dealt Witil moreseverely.

x x x

Copy of this resolution was received by r .;pondent onNovember 18, 2002.

June 2, 2003.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, .JR.Court t ministrator

TeEIe.oild-233/.ir >I1y.• oInl 'U"l' (.u<p)

..

10 Ducat, Jr. 17.Villalon, Jr., 337 SeRA 622,623 ("2000)11 rd, p. 629'22 Memarandum Circular No. 30, Seli~~ of 1989, or the Guidelines in the l,pplicstion of Penalties in}\riministrsti17e Cases1s Santos 17.Joyce Trinidad.ArleguicHemandez, et at; 22 FebmSly-200224,... . - ..

::ieenot.? no. 13