AC 10679; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10679 March 10, 2015
PO1 JOSE B. CASPE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant PO1 Jose B. Caspe filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica for violating Rules 1.03, 1.04, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The controversy stemmed from an incident on December 21, 2007, where barangay tanod Romulo Gaduena harassed individuals with a gun. Caspe responded, recovered the firearm, and Gaduena evaded arrest with the help of barangay officials who allegedly clobbered Caspe and took his gun. Upon the Chief of Police’s request for peace, Caspe agreed not to file charges. However, months later, Gaduena, represented by Atty. Mejica, filed a complaint for serious slander by deed against Caspe. Caspe alleged this was in retaliation because he had previously filed a disbarment and a civil case against Atty. Mejica for conflict of interest, and after Caspe refused to settle those cases, Atty. Mejica threatened to file numerous cases against him until he “kneels.” During the IBP proceedings, Atty. Mejica failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite notices, claiming he did not receive a copy of the complaint. The IBP found sufficient proof that a copy was sent, which he did not claim. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a three-year suspension.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica should be disciplined for violating the CPR and for disrespecting the IBP’s disciplinary proceedings.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Mejica is guilty of violating the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for three years. The Court adopted the IBP’s findings. The confluence of circumstances—including the filing of cases against Caspe only after Caspe filed cases against Atty. Mejica, the lapse of over five months before Gaduena’s complaint was filed despite a prior settlement, and Atty. Mejica acting as counsel despite the ethical proscription—proved by clear preponderance of evidence that Atty. Mejica was corruptly motivated to encourage suits against Caspe in violation of Rules 1.03, 1.04, and 10.01. His claim of denial of due process was untenable; he was notified of the proceedings but willfully failed to attend hearings, demonstrating disrespect for the IBP’s rules and procedures. His conduct amounted to conduct unbecoming a lawyer. Considering this was his second infraction, a three-year suspension was justified.