Cf. Yuseco v. DCA Bernad.doc

7/27/2019 Cf. Yuseco v. DCA Bernad.doc

1/7

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 94-1-061-SC March 29, 1995

ATTY. JOAQUIN YUSECO a! "ENJAMIN #RECIA, complainants,vs.$EPUTY COURT A$MINISTRATOR JUANITO A. "ERNA$, respondent.

MEN$O%A, J.:

This complaint as filed b! Att!. "oa#uin $useco and Ben%amin &recia a'ainst (eput! Court

Administrator "uanito A. Bernad, char'in' him ith suppressin' facts and ma)in' false statements inhis report to the Court in the disbarment case a'ainst complainant &recia for the purpose of causin'in%ur! to him *&recia+.

The complaint for disbarment a'ainst &recia as filed b! (octors Alberto ernande-, sabelo/n'ten'co and Achilles Bartolome and the 0t. u)e2s Medical Center ho char'ed him ith dishonest!and 'rave misconduct in connection ith the theft of some pa'es of a medical chart used in evidencein a dama'e suit1filed b! &recia2s clients a'ainst the doctors and the hospital. The disbarmentcase2as assi'ned to respondent Bernad for investi'ation, report and recommendation.&/n(ecember 13, 1445,4respondent submitted report in hich Bernad found therein respondentBen%amin &recia 'uilt! of the char'es. Bernad refrained from recommendin' the penalt! but insteadleft the matter to the Court to determine, observin' that hether the penalt! should be disbarment orsuspension, the to are 6severe forms of disciplinar! action 7hich8 should be resorted to onl! in cases

here a la!er demonstrates an attribute or course of conduct holl! inconsistent ith approvedprofessional standard.65

/n "une 19, 144:, the Court rendered a decision in hich it adopted the findin's of respondent andordered the disbarment of complainant Ben%amin &recia.6

&recia filed a motion for ne investi'ation and reconsideration but his motion as denied b! the Courtin its resolution of Au'ust 15, 144:.';e later sou'ht reconsideration.

&recia also moved for the reconsideration of the resolution of "ul! 59, 144: hich denied his motion fore


2/7

5

Complainants char'e respondent ith *1+ submittin' a report and recommendation to this Court in thedisbarment case ithout furnishin' complainant Ben%amin &recia ith a cop! thereof *5+ falsif!in' hisritten report b! narratin' facts hich are absolutel! false *:+ deliberatel! not revealin' hisrelationship ith former Chief "ustice Marcelo ernan, hose brother>in>la, Att!. Pompe!o Nolasco ofthe uasha la firm, is the counsel for complainant>doctors in the disbarment case as ell as in CivilCase No. :@3>D>41 hich &recia had filed a'ainst the doctors and the hospital.

e have considered the 'rounds of the complaint and found them to be ithout merit. Accordin'l! ehave resolved to dismiss the complaint.

First. Respondent had no dut! to complainant to furnish him a cop! of his report in the disbarmentcase. That report as submitted to the Court solel! for its use.9t as the decision of the Court, inconnection ith hich the report as re#uired, that complainant &recia, as respondent in thedisbarment proceedin', as entitled to receive. hat as important as that he as 'iven a cop! ofthe Court2s decision orderin' his disbarment and not that a cop! of respondent2s report be furnished tohim.

Second. Complainants cite fourteen *1+ cases or instances in hich respondent alle'edl! made falsestatements in his report to the Court. These instances, hoever, are the same ones cited incomplainant &recia2s motion for ne investi'ation and reconsideration hich this Court denied a!

bac) on Au'ust 15, 144:.

This is shon b! the folloin' table, ith indication of the correspondin' pa'es of the complaint andthe Motion for Ne nvesti'ation and Reconsideration filed in the disbarment case *Adm. Case No.:F4+.

Pa'e No. Pa'e No.

No. Allegations against Bernad OMB-93- Adm. Case

3223 No. 3694

1 ATTY. GRC!A "A# NO RA#ON $%A& 14%B.2&

OR MOT!' TO RMO' OR

(TAC" T" A))G( *AG# +2

AN( +3 O, T" M(!CA) C"ARTBCA# T" NTR!# AN(

CONTNT# T"RO, AR

MATR!A) AN( ,A'ORAB) TO

T" C)A!M O, "!# C)!NT#

AGA!N#T COM*)A!NANT#.

2 T" CORR*T *RACT!C# AN( +%B& 1%A.1&

N"O)Y A))!ANC O, /(G

BRNA(.

3 MA##!' #**R##!ON O, 9%C& 16%C&

0"O) BO(Y O, '!(NC

(C!#!' O, T" !NNOCNC

O, ATTY. GRC!A.

4 /(G BRNA( #**R##( AN( 21%(& 2%C.9&

0!T"")( ,ROM T" CORT T"

#TRONG AN( *O#!T!' (C)ARA-

T!ON O, /(G TR#!TA

CA*)ONG T"AT ATTY. GRC!A

0A# NOT *R#NT 0"N T"

A))G( !NC!(NT "A**N(

AN( T"AT #" (!( NOT A# "!M

TO *)A!N ANYT"!NG.

$ /(G BRNA( #**R##( AN( 22%& 3%C.1&

0!T"")( ,ROM T" CORT T"


3/7

:

A(M!##!ON O, COM*)A!NANT#

)A0YR5 ATTY. B CA#TRO5 T"AT

" 0A# T" ON 0"O BORRO0(

T" M(!CA) C"ART AN( NOT

ATTY. GRC!A.

6 /(G BRNA( #**R##( T" 2$%,& 32%C.11&

,ACT T"AT T"R 0A# NO

CON,#!ON AN( T"AT T" MAN

,ROM 0"OM /(G CA*)ONG

A))G()Y GOT T" *AG# O,

M(!CA) RCOR( #TAY( !N T"

CORTROOM ,OR #OMT!M BT

N!T"R T" C)R5 T" /(G

NOR T" )A0YR# O, T"

COM*)A!NANT# CA#( "!#

ARR#T5 ,!)( A MOT!ON ,OR

CONTM*T OR GOT "!# NAM

AN( ,)) !(NT!TY.

+ /(G BRNA( CR!M!NA))Y 29%G& 36%C.12&

#**R##( AN( 0!T"")(

T" ,ACT T"AT NO COM*)A!NT

AN( NO A,,!(A'!T 0A# ,!)(

!N T" CA# AN( T"AT T"

RCOR(# O, C!'!) CA# NO.

3$4-'-91 (O NOT CONTA!N ANY

R*ORT5 A,,!(A'!T OR

COM*)A!NT OR !N,ORMAT!ON

ON AN A))G( NTO0AR(

!NC!(NT.

/(G BRNA( #**R##( 31%"& 3%C.13&

T" ,ACT T"AT )ONG A,TR

T" A))G( !NC!(NT5 T"

A#"A )A0 O,,!C GOTBAC T" M(!CA) C"ART

0!T"OT ANY *ROT#T OR

R#R'AT!ON T"AT ANY

*AG OR *AG# T"RO, 0R

)O#T5 (TAC"(5 TORN OR

CRM*)(.

9 /(G BRNA( (!( NOT RT 32%!& 39%C.14&

,,ORT TO "A' T" MY#TRY

MAN *RO(C( B,OR "!M

#O " CAN B CON,RONT(. "

A)ON CAN *RO' 0"AT *A*R

OR *A*R# 0R G!'N TO "!M

AN( 0"O GA' !T TO "!M.

1 '!(NC O, #!M!)AR ACT O, 3+%/& 39%C.1$&

*)ANT!NG '!(NC BY T"

A#"A )A0 O,,!C 0A#

#**R##( BY /(G BRNA(.

11 T" *O)!C "A# RCNT)Y 3+%& 2

GOTTN "O)( O, T"!#

TRM)Y '!TA) 0!TN##5

T" 7N!(NT!,!( MAN7

MNT!ON( !N T" (C!#!ON

O, T" #*RM CORT.


4/7

12 /(G BRNA( #**R##( 43%)& 43%C.16&

AN( (!( NOT !NC)( !N "!#

,!N(!NG# T" ,O))O0!NG

,ACT# 0"!C" AR (C!(()Y

(#TRCT!' O, "!#

AB#O)T)Y ,A)# ,!N(!NG#

O, ,ACT#8 No one identiied :ages

+2 and +3 o t;e medi


5/7

@

7:8 Respondent suppressed the fact that it as the la!ers of complainants in thedisbarment case ho had secured a falsified document and passed it off as the missin'pa'es hich ere recovered from an unidentified person.

There as no credible evidence presented in the disbarment proceedin's to prove this alle'ation. Thealle'ed discrepanc! ith respect to appearance and numberin' of the stolen pa'es beteen theori'inal copies and the photocopies as more apparent than real. t as mentioned in respondent2s

report but 'iven no ei'ht in vie of the satisfactor! e


6/7

F

There as no evidence in the record of the disbarment case to sho the supposed lac) of complainta'ainst &recia or the unidentified person as a result of the incident. Accordin'l! no such 6fact6 couldhave been mentioned in the report. Nor as it material that there as alle'edl! no complaint made ofthe attempt to destro! evidence b! the removal of certain pa'es of the medical record. "ud'e Capulon'e


7/7

9

The testimon! of Aves as accounted for in respondent2s report, althou'h respondent did not 'ive itmuch ei'ht for the folloin' reason stated in his reportH

Assumin' arguendo that the unidentified man accosted and confronted b! "ud'eCapulon' as the man actuall! seen b! Att!. Aves receivin' the #uestioned papers fromAtt!. Castro, it is rather surprisin' h! Att!. Aves did not mention such incident to "ud'eCapulon' durin' the meetin' in her chambers. And instead of simpl! insistin' that

nobod!, but nobod!, too) interest in detainin' the unidentified man and establishin' hisidentit!, h! did not Att!. Aves ta)e such initiative considerin' that he has as muchinterest in establishin' the identit! of that personI Moreover, from amon' thoseconcerned, he alone had the opportunit! to observe that the unidentified man as stillpresent in the courtroom even after the confrontation in the chamber of "ud'e Capulon'.

71:8 Respondent failed to reveal the evil motive behind the complaint a'ainst &recia.This motive ori'inated from &recia2s successful cross>ecalled omissions are the inevitable result of the evaluation of the evidence G the siftin' of the'rain from the chaff G rather that the suppression of truth.

;ERE/RE, the complaint is (0M00E(.

0/ /R(ERE(.

Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Kaunan andFrancisco, JJ., concur.

!arvasa, ".J. and #itug, J., too$ no art.

Cf. Yuseco v. DCA Bernad.doc

Documents

Transcript of Cf. Yuseco v. DCA Bernad.doc