Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84191:59615&catid=1594&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:13:45+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015 - PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent.
PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent.
Caspe brought separate suits for damages and disbarment: one for conflict of interest8 and the present complaint. Atty. Mejica tried to negotiate a settlement but Caspe refused. Atty. Mejica allegedly then threatened Caspe that “he will help file cases after cases against the complainant until he kneels before [him]. He will ‘put down’ complainant so much so that he will be removed from the service.”9 From then on, Caspe alleged, Atty. Mejica maliciously encouraged the filing of suits against him.
In the present complaint, Caspe narrated that on December 21, 2007, Romulo Gaduena,10 a barangay tanod, harassed Jan Mark Busa and Marcelino Jataas with a gun. Caspe, who was on duty, together with PO1 Onofre Lopeña responded. They recovered a caliber 0.357 revolver which was turned over to the Can-avid Police station. The incident was recorded in the police blotter. Gaduena evaded arrest with the help of barangay captain Prudencio Agda and other barangay tanods11 who allegedly clobbered Caspe and took his gun. In the interest of peace and harmony, the Chief of Police12 called and requested that Caspe desist from filing charges against the barangay captain and tanods, specifically Gaduena. Caspe acceded.
However, Gaduena, with Atty. Mejica as counsel, filed a complaint13 for serious slander by deed against Caspe, which was supported by a joint affidavit14 of two barangay tanods. It was alleged that Caspe kicked, collared and slapped Gaduena’s face. This prompted Caspe to disregard the agreement with the Chief of Police and he filed cases against the tanods. Suspecting that Atty. Mejica encouraged Gaduena to file the case against him, Caspe filed the cases for damages15 and disbarment16 against Atty. Mejica before the IBP.
In its July 4, 2008 Order,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) ordered Atty. Mejica to submit his answer.
A Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued on September 22, 2008 for a hearing scheduled on October 21, 2008.18 Atty. Mejica, however, failed to appear. The hearing was rescheduled on November 18, 2008.
We adopt the findings of the IBP but modify the penalty imposed.
The IBP CBD concluded that there could be no other reason for Atty. Mejica to file the cases against PO1 Caspe other than to get back at him. We agree that the confluence of circumstances points to Atty. Mejica’s corrupt motive in helping Gaduena in filing cases against Caspe, in violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the CPR.
With respect to Atty. Mejica’s claim that he was not afforded due process, i.e., he was not able to receive a copy of a complaint which in turn was the reason for him not to have attended the mandatory conference, we find this untenable.
Atty. Mejica during the course of these proceedings has missed all four scheduled hearings supposedly since he was not furnished any copy of the complaint. Records suggest however that a copy of the complaint was sent to him on August 25, 2008, a mail which he did not claim. He submitted two manifestations in response to notices he received. He was thus placed on notice that there was an action against him.
As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.
We thus hold that Atty. Mejica further violated Canon 1145 of the CPR which calls for a lawyer to observe and give due respect to courts and judicial officers.
Given that this is Atty. Mejica’s second infraction, we thus rule it appropriate under the circumstances to impose a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS effective upon finality of this Resolution, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
1 Complaint dated June 27, 2007 and docketed as CBD Case No. 08-2246. Rollo, pp. 2-9.
2 Entry in the Law List states: MEJICA, AQUILINO A.; Oras, Eastern Samar; May 14, 2004; Roll No. 49688.
Rule 1.03. – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04. – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
Rule 10.01. – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
8 Docketed as CBD Case No. 08-2190, id. at 108.
10 Gadueno in some parts of the records.
11 Including Melba Sobresida, a barangay kagawad.
12 Police Senior Inspector Emmanuel I. Esplago.
16 Id. at 45-50. There are two disbarment cases filed by PO1 Caspe: one for conflict of interest docketed as CBD Case No. 08-2190 and the present complaint docketed as CBD Case No. 08-2246.
17 Id. at 83. Signed by Director for Bar Discipline Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal.
18 Id. at 84. Signed by Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz.
20 Id. at 91. Signed by Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz.
23 Id. at 99. Signed by Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz.
24 Id. at 101. Signed by Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz.
25 Id. at 108-119. Signed by Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz.
26 A.C. No. 9120, March 11, 2013, 693 SCRA 1.
27 The Report and Recommendation erroneously noted that Atty. Mejica was meted a suspension of six months, rollo, p. 118. See Baldado v. Mejica, id. at 14.
35Pimentel, Jr. v. Atty. Llorente, 393 Phil. 544, 551 (2000).
36Ducat, Jr. v Atty. Villalon, Jr., 392 Phil. 394, 402 (2000).
37Pimentel, Jr. v. Atty. Llorente, supra note 35, at 552-553.
38Asturias v. Attys. Serrano and Samson, 512 Phil. 496, 504 (2005).
40 A.C. No. 10043, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 328.
42 A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013, 711 SCRA 290, 299.
43 528 Phil. 814 (2006).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.