G.R. No. A.C. No. 11433 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301), June 05, 2024
Clarita Mendoza and Clarisse Mendoza, Complainants, vs. Atty. Lemuel B. Nobleza, Atty. Honesto D. Noche, and Atty. Randy C. Caingal, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Clarita Mendoza and Clarisse Mendoza were accused in separate criminal cases (unjust vexation and violation of Republic Act No. 7610 , respectively) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, based on a Resolution dated May 24, 2016, issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela (Valenzuela OCP). The Resolution was prepared by Senior Associate City Prosecutor Atty. Randy C. Caingal, recommended for approval by Deputy City Prosecutor Atty. Honesto D. Noche, and approved by City Prosecutor Atty. Lemuel B. Nobleza. After the Informations were filed, complainants filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration before the Valenzuela OCP and simultaneously filed this disbarment complaint against the respondent prosecutors. In response to the disbarment complaint, the respondents inhibited themselves from resolving the motion for reconsideration and referred it to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which subsequently denied the motion. In their disbarment complaint, the complainants alleged that the respondents committed: (1) Gross ignorance of the law or procedure for filing the unjust vexation case with the RTC despite it falling under MTC jurisdiction, filing a Motion for Consolidation of cases from different court levels, and recommending excessive bail; and (2) Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for allegedly fabricating the charges in both criminal cases. During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the complainants waived all grounds except the allegation of fabricating the RA 7610 case against Clarisse.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents should be disbarred or disciplined for gross ignorance of the law/procedure and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath in relation to their prosecutorial functions in the criminal cases against the complainants.

RULING

The Court dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of merit. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, which approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report recommending dismissal. The Court held that the complainants engaged in “effective forum shopping” by simultaneously pursuing an appeal/reconsideration of the prosecutorial Resolution before the DOJ and filing a disbarment case based on the same actions, which is precisely the conduct the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) seeks to curb. The CPRA mandates that a disciplinary complaint against a government lawyer must first allege that the act complained of has been the subject of a final adverse decision by a competent government agency. Here, the DOJ had already issued an Order denying the complainants’ motion for reconsideration, which the complainants did not appeal. Furthermore, on the substantive allegations, the Court found no basis for disciplinary action. The filing of the cases with the RTC sitting as a Family Court was proper as the victims were minors. The allegation of fabrication was unsupported, as the respondents conducted a preliminary investigation and based the charges on submitted evidence, including birth certificates and affidavits. The recommended bail was in accordance with the DOJ Bail Bond Guide. The respondents were performing their official duties, and their actions did not constitute gross ignorance or ethical violations warranting disbarment.