AC 11710; (November, 2023) (Digest)
A.C. No. 11710, November 13, 2023
Wilfredo B. Reyes, Complainant, vs. Atty. Sherwin Prose C. Castañeda, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Wilfredo B. Reyes filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sherwin Prose C. Castañeda before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Reyes alleged that the respondent, who was appointed as Director III of the National Printing Office (NPO) on August 18, 2016, unlawfully collected salaries and allowances covering the period from July 1 to August 17, 2016—a time when he was not yet officially appointed. Reyes claimed this act constituted unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Supreme Court required the respondent to file his comment on the complaint. Despite receiving the Court’s resolutions, the respondent failed to file his comment, prompting the Court to impose a fine of PHP 1,000.00 for his disobedience. The case was then referred to the IBP for investigation. During the IBP proceedings, the respondent also failed to attend the mandatory conference and submit required pleadings, claiming he only learned of the case later through an IBP application and that he had resigned from the NPO.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Sherwin Prose C. Castañeda should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of and for his failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the main administrative complaint for lack of merit but affirmed the penalty for the respondent’s disregard of judicial and IBP directives. On the substantive charge of unlawful collection of salaries, the Court adopted the IBP’s finding that the complaint was unsubstantiated. The complainant presented only photocopies of documents, which are inadmissible as evidence under the Rules of Court. Thus, the allegations of dishonesty and deceit in the respondent’s public office were not proven by substantial evidence.
However, the Court found the respondent administratively liable for his repeated failure to comply with lawful orders. The records showed that the NPO, where the respondent was employed, received the Supreme Court’s initial resolution requiring his comment in November 2017, prior to his resignation in September 2018. His claim of ignorance was therefore untenable. A lawyer’s duty to obey court orders is paramount, and willful disobedience constitutes a violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, which mandates respect for legal processes. The Court upheld the PHP 1,000.00 fine it had previously imposed for this disobedience. The IBP’s recommended fine for his failure to participate in its proceedings was not adopted, as the Court’s own penalty sufficed. The respondent was sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.