A.C. No. 11087, October 12, 2020
Pastor Abaracoso Macaventa, Complainant, vs. Atty. Anthony C. Nuyda, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pastor Abaracoso Macaventa filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Anthony C. Nuyda, the Regional Director of the DILG Regional Office VI. The complaint alleged gross neglect of duty for Atty. Nuyda’s purported delay or refusal to implement a Dismissal Order from the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Capiz Governor Victor Tanco, Sr. The complainant asserted that while the order was implemented against the Governor’s son, Vladimir Tanco, it was not executed against Governor Tanco himself, with the DILG citing a need to seek clarification from the OMB regarding the applicability of the Aguinaldo Doctrine, which pertains to condonation of misconduct by re-election.
Atty. Nuyda, in his defense, explained that he was acting under the direct orders of his superior, DILG Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero. Usec. Panadero had formally sought clarification from the OMB on the Aguinaldo Doctrine’s application and had issued a memorandum directing Nuyda to implement the dismissal only against Vladimir Tanco pending that clarification. Atty. Nuyda complied immediately by issuing the necessary implementation memoranda on October 23, 2015. The OMB later confirmed in a letter dated November 16, 2015, that the DILG’s course of action was correct, as Governor Tanco’s re-election had indeed condoned his prior misconduct, rendering the dismissal order unenforceable against him.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Anthony C. Nuyda should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and affirmed the IBP’s findings, holding that Atty. Nuyda is not administratively liable. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of gross neglect of duty and the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings. For a finding of gross neglect, there must be a showing of flagrant, culpable, and deliberate refusal to perform a duty. The evidence established that Atty. Nuyda did not refuse or delay implementation out of neglect; rather, he faithfully followed a specific protocol and the explicit directives of his superior. This protocol, based on a standing arrangement between the DILG and the OMB, required seeking prior clarification from the OMB when legal issues arose in implementing its orders.
The subsequent confirmation from the OMB itself validated that the DILG’s action—seeking clarification and initially withholding implementation against the re-elected governor—was legally correct. Therefore, Atty. Nuyda’s actions were performed within the bounds of his authority and in accordance with established procedure. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must establish the charges by clear, preponderant evidence. Here, the complainant failed to meet this burden, as the respondent’s actions were justified and demonstrated neither indifference nor willful disobedience. The Court emphasized that while it will discipline errant lawyers, it will not sanction those against whom accusations are unsubstantiated.