1

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME 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 in his 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. 1u)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 evidence in a dama'e suit 1 filed b! &recia2s clients a'ainst the doctors and the hospital. The disbarment case 2 as assi'ned to respondent Bernad for investi'ation, report and recommendation. & /n (ecember 13, 1445, 4 respondent submitted report in hich Bernad found therein respondent Ben%amin &recia 'uilt! of the char'es. Bernad refrained from recommendin' the penalt! but instead left the matter to the Court to determine, observin' that hether the penalt! should be disbarment or suspension, the t o are 6severe forms of disciplinar! action 7 hich8 should be resorted to onl! in cases here a la !er demonstrates an attribute or course of conduct holl! inconsistent ith approved professional standard.6 5 /n "une 19, 144:, the Court rendered a decision in hich it adopted the findin's of respondent and ordered the disbarment of complainant Ben%amin &recia. 6 &recia filed a motion for ne investi'ation and reconsideration but his motion in its resolution of Au'ust 15, 144:. ' ;e later sou'ht reconsideration. as denied b! the Court

&recia also moved for the reconsideration of the resolution of "ul! 59, 144: hich denied his motion for e<tension to file a motion for reconsideration and directed the entr! of final %ud'ment. But in its resolution of /ctober 14, 144:, ( the Court denied both motions of the complainant and reiterated its resolution directin' entr! of final %ud'ment. Ben%amin &recia and his counsel in the disbarment case, Att!. "oa#uin $useco, thereafter filed this complaint for 6falsification b! a public officer6 as defined in Art. 191 of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of =:*e+ of the Anti>&raft and Corrupt Practices Act *Rep Act. No. :?14+ ith the /ffice of the /mbudsman. This Court, ta)in' co'ni-ance of the complaint a'ainst (eput! Court Administrator "uanito A. Bernad, re#uired him to comment. /n Au'ust 5@, 144A, the /ffice of the /mbudsman dismissed the complaint on the 'round that it based on matters alread! decided b! this Court in the disbarment case. as

5
Complainants char'e respondent ith *1+ submittin' a report and recommendation to this Court in the disbarment case ithout furnishin' complainant Ben%amin &recia ith a cop! thereofB *5+ falsif!in' his ritten report b! narratin' facts hich are absolutel! falseB *:+ deliberatel! not revealin' his relationship ith former Chief "ustice Marcelo ,ernan, hose brother>in>la , Att!. Pompe!o Nolasco of the Cuasha la firm, is the counsel for complainant>doctors in the disbarment case as ell as in Civil Case No. :@A3>D>41 hich &recia had filed a'ainst the doctors and the hospital. Ee have considered the 'rounds of the complaint and found them to be have resolved to dismiss the complaint. ithout merit. Accordin'l! e

First. Respondent had no dut! to complainant to furnish him a cop! of his report in the disbarment case. That report as submitted to the Court solel! for its use. 9 .t as the decision of the Court, in connection ith hich the report as re#uired, that complainant &recia, as respondent in the disbarment proceedin', as entitled to receive. Ehat as important as that he as 'iven a cop! of the Court2s decision orderin' his disbarment and not that a cop! of respondent2s report be furnished to him. Second. Complainants cite fourteen *1A+ cases or instances in hich respondent alle'edl! made false statements in his report to the Court. These instances, ho ever, are the same ones cited in complainant &recia2s motion for ne investi'ation and reconsideration hich this Court denied a! bac) on Au'ust 15, 144:. This is sho n b! the follo in' table, ith indication of the correspondin' pa'es of the complaint and the Motion for Ne .nvesti'ation and Reconsideration filed in the disbarment case *Adm. Case No. :F4A+. Pa'e No.
No. 1 Allegations against Bernad ATTY. GR C!A "A# NO R A#ON OR MOT!' TO R MO' OR ( TAC" T" A)) G ( *AG # +2 AN( +3 O, T" M (!CA) C"ART B CA-# T" NTR! # AN( CONT NT# T" R O, AR MAT R!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( -N"O)Y A))!ANC O, /-(G B RNA(. 3 MA##!' #-**R ##!ON O, 0"O) BO(Y O, '!( NC ( C!#!' O, T" !NNOC NC O, ATTY. GR C!A. 4 /-(G B RNA( #-**R ## ( AN( 0!T"" )( ,ROM T" CO-RT T" #TRONG AN( *O#!T!' ( C)ARAT!ON O, /-(G T R #!TA CA*-)ONG T"AT ATTY. GR C!A 0A# NOT *R # NT 0" N T" A)) G ( !NC!( NT "A** N ( AN( T"AT #" (!( NOT A#2 "!M TO 3*)A!N ANYT"!NG. $ /-(G B RNA( #-**R ## ( AN( 0!T"" )( ,ROM T" CO-RT T" 22% & 3.%C.1.& 21%(& 21%C.9& 9%C& 16%C& +%B& 1.%A.1& OMB-933223 $%A&

Pa'e No.
Adm. Case No. 3694 14%B.2&

:
A(M!##!ON O, COM*)A!NANT#4 )A0Y R5 ATTY. B- CA#TRO5 T"AT " 0A# T" ON 0"O BORRO0 ( T" M (!CA) C"ART AN( NOT ATTY. GR C!A. 6 /-(G B RNA( #-**R ## ( T" ,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) R COR( #TAY ( !N T" CO-RTROOM ,OR #OM T!M B-T N !T" R T" C) R25 T" /-(G NOR T" )A0Y R# O, T" COM*)A!NANT# CA-# ( "!# ARR #T5 ,!) ( A MOT!ON ,OR CONT M*T OR GOT "!# NAM AN( ,-)) !( NT!TY. + /-(G B RNA( CR!M!NA))Y #-**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" R COR(# O, C!'!) CA# NO. 3$41-'-91 (O NOT CONTA!N ANY R *ORT5 A,,!(A'!T OR COM*)A!NT OR !N,ORMAT!ON ON AN A)) G ( -NTO0AR( !NC!( NT. 1 /-(G B RNA( #-**R ## ( T" ,ACT T"AT )ONG A,T R T" A)) G ( !NC!( NT5 T" 6-A#"A )A0 O,,!C GOT BAC2 T" M (!CA) C"ART 0!T"O-T ANY *ROT #T OR R # R'AT!ON T"AT ANY *AG OR *AG # T" R O, 0 R )O#T5 ( TAC" (5 TORN OR CR-M*) (. 9 /-(G B RNA( (!( NOT 3 RT ,,ORT TO "A' T" MY#T RY MAN *RO(-C ( B ,OR "!M #O " CAN B CON,RONT (. " A)ON CAN *RO' 0"AT *A* R OR *A* R# 0 R G!' N TO "!M AN( 0"O GA' !T TO "!M. 1. '!( NC O, #!M!)AR ACT O, *)ANT!NG '!( NC BY T" 6-A#"A )A0 O,,!C 0A# #-**R ## ( BY /-(G B RNA(. 11 T" *O)!C "A# R C NT)Y GOTT N "O)( O, T"!# 3TR M )Y '!TA) 0!TN ##5 T" 7-N!( NT!,! ( MAN7 M NT!ON ( !N T" ( C!#!ON O, T" #-*R M CO-RT. 3+%2& 2 3+%/& 39%C.1$& 32%!& 39%C.14& 31%"& 31%C.13& 29%G& 36%C.12& 2$%,& 32%C.11&

A
12 /-(G B RNA( #-**R ## ( AN( (!( NOT !NC)-( !N "!# ,!N(!NG# T" ,O))O0!NG ,ACT# 0"!C" AR ( C!( ()Y ( #TR-CT!' O, "!# AB#O)-T )Y ,A)# ,!N(!NG# O, ,ACT#8 No one identi9ied :ages +2 and +3 o9 t;e medi<al <;art as t;e one deta<;ed= :ages +2 and +3 >ere not ?et mar@ed as eA;iBits o9 an? :art? on /Cl? 165 1991= no eDiden<e >as o99ered to lin@ res:ondent to t;e Cnidenti9ied man5 et<. 13 /-(G B RNA( ,A!) ( TO "A' T" MAN TO 0"OM T" A)) G ( *AG # O, T" M (!CA) R *ORT 0 R A)) G ()Y "AN( ( )OCAT ( AN( BRO-G"T TO "!M ,OR 6- #T!ON!NG. 14 '!) MOT!' B "!N( T" COM*)A!NT AGA!N#T ATTY. GR C!A. $2%N& 9%A& $1%M& $1%(& 43%)& 43%C.16&

.ndeed, &recia2s complaint is nothin' but an attempt to circumvent the resolution of this Court declarin' the decision in the disbarment case final. Third. Ehat complainants must )no is that hile the Court in the disbarment case a'reed ith much of hat as contained in the report of the (eput! Court Administrator, it did so onl! after it had e<amined the record of the case and found the report to be in accordance ith the evidence. To the e<tent that the Court a'reed ith the findin's of respondent, his findin's became those of the Court and complainants have no basis for char'in' suppression of material facts. .ndeed, 6the Court assumes full responsibilit! for all its acts. .ts personnel cannot ans er and should not be made to ans er for acts of the Court.6 10 .t is presumptuous for complainants to presume that because of alle'ed omissions and suppression of material facts in the report the Court as thereb! misled in its decision. The truth is that even a cursor! e<amination of the 'rounds alle'ed in the present complaint the utter baselessness of the char'es. Complainants2 alle'e G ill sho

718 Respondent did not include or mention in the sli'htest de'ree the contents and hand ritten entries in the stolen pa'es hich sho be!ond doubt that the! ere favorable to &recia2s clients. This alle'ation is made in an effort to sho that &recia had no motive in stealin' the pa'es. This defense mi'ht be considered if there as no evidence that &recia had been seen removin' the pa'es. But the fact is that t o itnesses, ho are personnel of the RTC in hich the case as bein' heard, pointed to &recia as the person ho had removed t o pa'es of the medical chart. 758 Respondent suppressed the testimon! of "ud'e Capulon' that &recia hen the incident happened. as not present

"ud'e Teresita (i-on>Capulon', before hom the case as pendin' at the time of the incident, did not testif! that complainant as not present at the time of the incident. Ehat she said as that she 6could not see Att!. &recia6 durin' the confrontation ith the unidentified person found in possession of the stolen pa'es. "ud'e Capulon'2s testimon! did not e<culpate &recia. To the contrar!, accordin' to "ud'e Capulon', it as either Mrs. Avelina Robles, from hom &recia alle'edl! 'ot the medical chart, or Ms. 0andico, another court personnel ho sa &recia tear off the pa'es, ho reported to her that &recia had pulled pa'es of the medical record. 11

@
7:8 Respondent suppressed the fact that it as the la !ers of complainants in the disbarment 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. The alle'ed discrepanc! ith respect to appearance and numberin' of the stolen pa'es bet een the ori'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<planation 'iven b! the personnel of 0t. 1u)e2s ho prepared the ori'inal cop! and caused the numberin' of the pa'es to be made in accordance ith standard procedure. 12 7A8 Respondent suppressed the material contradictions in the testimon! of the t o court personnel and the inherent impossibilit! of their testimon! due to the arran'ement of the chairs, tables, des), etc., that completel! obstructed their vie and si'ht. Respondent also ron'full! ithheld pictures hich sho their relative positions. Contrar! to complainants2 claim, there ere no material contradictions in the testimonies of the court personnel. Their testimonies ere spontaneous and direct to the point, hich ma)e them credible and truthful. 1& /n the other hand, the pictures submitted b! &recia do not sho that the itnesses could not have seen him in the act of detachin' the pa'es. The arran'ement of the chairs, tables and des)s did not obstruct the vie of the inside of the court. An!one sittin' on an! of the chairs could easil! be seen from an! part of the court. 7@8 Respondent suppressed the admission of Mrs. Robles on cross>e<amination that she did not see &recia removin' the pa'es from the medical record. The records contain no such admission b! Mrs. Robles. No here in the report of the hearin's conducted, particularl! the hearin' of Au'ust A, 1445 hen Mrs. Robles testified, does it appear that Mrs. Robles contradicted her earlier testimon! that she had seen &recia removin' t o pa'es of the medical chart. To the contrar!, to'ether ith Ms. 0andico, Mrs. Robles stoutl! maintained that it as &recia ho had detached the pa'es. 7F8 Respondent suppressed and ithheld from the court the admission of complainants2 la !er, Att!. Bu Castro, that he as the one ho borro ed the medical chart and not Att!. &recia. .t as unnecessar! to mention this considerin' that accordin' to Mrs. Robles, the official custodian of the report, both Att!. Castro and &recia had separatel! borro ed the report. Ehat as important as that there as direct testimon! as to ho as responsible for tearin' off the pa'es. 798 Respondent suppressed the fact that there as no confusion and that the man from hom "ud'e Capulon' alle'edl! 'ot the pa'es of the medical record sta!ed in the courtroom for sometime but neither the cler), the %ud'e nor the la !ers of the complainants caused his arrest, filed a motion for contempt, or 'ot his name and full identit!. This is not true. The removal of pa'es of the medical report created a commotion in the court as a result of hich Mrs. Robles fainted and she had to be ta)en to the hospital. The records sho this happened after the stolen pa'es had been recovered and the incident as reported to the police at the instance of "ud'e Capulon'. Mrs. Robles, Ms. 0andico and "ud'e Capulon' 'ave testimonies about the incident to respondent Bernad at the hearin' of the disbarment case. 738 Respondent criminall! suppressed and ithheld the fact that no complaint and no affidavit as filed in the case and that the records of Civil Case No. :@A3>D>41 do not contain an! report, affidavit or complaint or information on the alle'ed unto ard incident.

F
There as no evidence in the record of the disbarment case to sho the supposed lac) of complaint a'ainst &recia or the unidentified person as a result of the incident. Accordin'l! no such 6fact6 could have been mentioned in the report. Nor as it material that there as alle'edl! no complaint made of the attempt to destro! evidence b! the removal of certain pa'es of the medical record. "ud'e Capulon' e<plained that she and the court personnel ere so unnerved b! the incident that the! failed to 'et the name of the person from hom the! recovered the missin' pa'es and char'e him in court. The "ud'e testified, ho ever, that she instructed Ms. 0andico to report the matter to the police. Nor is there truth to the claim of the complainants that no report or information re'ardin' the incident as mentioned in the dama'e suit, Civil Case No. :@A3>D>41. .n her orders dated "ul! 1F, 1441 and "ul! 5:, 1441, "ud'e Capulon' specificall! mentioned the 6unto ard incident6 hich she e<plained in her testimon! to be the incident involvin' the tearin' off of pa'es of the medical chart. 748 Respondent suppressed the fact that lon' after the alle'ed incident, the Cuasha 1a /ffice 'ot bac) the medical chart ithout an! protest or reservation that an! pa'e or pa'es thereof ere lost, detached, torn or crumpled. Ehether the medical record as intact and received b! the la office ithout protest that it as not complete is immaterial to the char'e a'ainst complainant &recia. The issue a'ainst him as the removal, not the recover!, of the pa'es in #uestion. 71?8 Respondent did not e<ert effort to have the m!ster! man produced before him so he can be confronted. ;e alone can prove hat paper or papers ere 'iven to him and ho 'ave it to him. ;e did not see) the help of the National Bureau of .nvesti'ation to find the unidentified person. Respondent did not have a dut! to brin' the unidentified man before him. That as the dut! of the parties to the case. ;is %ob as to ma)e findin's on the basis of evidence submitted to him. /n the basis of such evidence &recia as found to have torn off the pa'es and later 'iven them to the un)no n person. 7118 Respondent 1a /ffice. ithheld evidence of similar act of plantin' evidence b! the Cuasha

This is not true. /n pa'e 1@ of his report respondent statedH These statements of Att!. $useco ere controverted b! the la !ers from the Cuasha 1a /ffice ho asserted that in the Tan Pin' ;o) case, there as no e!e itness to sustain the char'e of evidence plantin', hile in the instant case, there are t o e!e itnesses ho are %udicial personnel and hose inte'rit! as itnesses as never doubted nor put in issue b! both parties. 7158 Respondent suppressed and did not include in his findin's the follo in' facts are decidedl! destructive of his absolutel! false findin's of factsH a. No one identified the stolen pa'es as the ones detached. hich had been hich

This alle'ation is false. At the hearin' held on Au'ust A, 1445, the pa'es ere identified b! Mrs. Robles as those hich had been filched b! &recia and later recovered from the unidentified person. The! ere mar)ed as E<hibits A and B. 14 b. The testimon! of (amaso Aves that he sa Att!. Castro holdin' the medical record and later hand a piece of paper to the unidentified person.

9
The testimon! of Aves as accounted for in respondent2s report, althou'h respondent did not 'ive it much ei'ht for the follo in' reason stated in his reportH Assumin' arguendo that the unidentified man accosted and confronted b! "ud'e Capulon' as the man actuall! seen b! Att!. Aves receivin' the #uestioned papers from Att!. Castro, it is rather surprisin' h! Att!. Aves did not mention such incident to "ud'e Capulon' durin' the meetin' in her chambers. And instead of simpl! insistin' that nobod!, but nobod!, too) interest in detainin' the unidentified man and establishin' his identit!, h! did not Att!. Aves ta)e such initiative considerin' that he has as much interest in establishin' the identit! of that personI Moreover, from amon' those concerned, he alone had the opportunit! to observe that the unidentified man as still present 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>e<amination of the doctors ho ere the defendants in the case for dama'es from hom dama'in' admissions ere elicited. This as mentioned althou'h a'ain it respondent Bernad statedH as not believed b! respondent. /n pa'e 1@ of his report,

/n the purported scheme to destro! respondent Att!. &recia, this has somethin' to do ith the hearin' on "une 5A, 1441 here the latter succeeded in callin' (r. Alberto ,ernande- to the itness stand as his hostile itness and alle'edl! elicited from him dama'in' admissions over the vi'orous ob%ections of Att!. Bu Castro. A perusal of the transcript of steno'raphic notes ta)en durin' the hearin' *E<hibits 6E to E>A56, pp. 514 to 5F1, ibid+ do not, ho ever, sho such fiasco. Fourth. Complainants alle'e that respondent Bernad is a close personal friend of Att!. Pompe!o Nolasco, counsel of the complainants in the disbarment case a'ainst &recia, and that because of this Bernad2s ob%ectivit! and impartialit! ere in 6'rave doubt and in serious #uestion.6 Att!. Nolasco is a brother>in>la of former Chief "ustice Marcelo B. ,ernan. Ehile ac)no led'in' his 'ratitude to the former Chief "ustice for appointin' him to his present position, respondent denies that he is beholden to the former Chief "ustice or that he maintains 6fello ship6 ith him and Att!. Nolasco. As respondent points out, the fact as that the disbarment case as assi'ned to him three months after Chief "ustice ,ernan had retired from the Court. .ndeed, aside from this alle'ation, there is no evidence in the record to support the char'e of complainants. .n conclusion, e find no basis for the char'e that respondent suppressed material facts in his report hich this Court adopted in its decision disbarrin' complainant &recia. Ehat complainants char'e as suppressions in the report are in realit! omissions of facts hich in the e<ercise of sound %ud'ment ere found to be immaterial. Complainants confuse appreciation of evidence ith suppression of facts. The so>called 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. E;ERE,/RE, the complaint is (.0M.00E(. 0/ /R(ERE(. Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Ka unan and Francisco, JJ., concur. !arvasa, ".J. and #itug, J., too$ no art.