G.R. No.: A.C. No. 9259; March 13, 2013
Case Parties/Title: Jasper Junno F. Rodica, Complainant, vs. Atty. Manuel “Lolong” M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro, Atty. Joseph C. Tan, and John Does, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a resolution of a Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition filed by complainant Jasper Junno F. Rodica, assailing the Court’s August 23, 2012 Resolution which dismissed her disbarment complaint against the respondent lawyers and merely warned Atty. Edwin M. Espejo to be more circumspect. The complainant argued that the Court unfairly ignored the supporting affidavits attached to her complaint, denied her due process by not allowing her to file a Reply and by resolving the case without declaring it submitted for resolution, and made erroneous factual observations regarding her affidavit and the status of related cases. She also sought the inhibition of the participating justices on grounds of bias.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court erred in its consideration of the evidence and procedure, thereby denying the complainant due process.
2. Whether the Motion for Inhibition should be granted.

RULING

The Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition for lack of merit.
1. On the Consideration of Evidence and Due Process:
* Regarding the Affidavits: The Court held that it did consider the affidavits of Brimar F. Rodica, Timothy F. Rodica, and Atty. Ramon S. Diño as corroborative evidence. However, it exercised its discretion by not restating their contents in the prior Resolution, as they merely reiterated the allegations already summarized in the Complaint. The Court emphasized it is not obligated to mention every piece of evidence and has the prerogative to determine the relevance and credence of submitted evidence.
* Regarding the Lack of a Reply and Declaration of Submission: The Court ruled that the complainant was not denied due process. It clarified that it has the discretion to dismiss a disbarment complaint outright if clearly wanting in merit, or to resolve it based on the pleadings already submitted without requiring a Reply. The procedure followed—requiring Answers from respondents and then resolving the case based on the Complaint, supporting affidavits, and Comments—was within its discretion. The Court cited precedents (*International Militia of People Against Corruption & Terrorism v. Chief Justice Davide, Jr.; Battad v. Senator Defensor-Santiago) where complaints were dismissed outright or motu proprio after finding insufficient justification.
Regarding Factual Observations: The Court found no error in its observations. It maintained that the complainant’s July 21, 2011 Affidavit was correctly described as “un-notarized” because the copy attached to the Complaint lacked a jurat, and a mere mention of notarization details in the Complaint body could not substitute for this. Furthermore, the Court’s observation that the withdrawal of a related case should not have been limited to the RTC case was supported by the complainant’s own Sworn Affidavit (incorporated in the Complaint), which mentioned a separate 2009 case filed with the HLURB, and by other pleadings referencing multiple pending cases.
2. On the Motion for Inhibition: The Court denied the motion, stating that an inhibition requires a just and valid reason, and a mere imputation of bias is insufficient, especially when baseless. The Court found the complainant’s claim of bias and prejudice to be unfounded.
Dispositive Portion: “WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition are DENIED for lack of merit. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. SO ORDERED.”