AC 12669; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12669, June 28, 2021
Josemarie L. Diaz, Complainant, vs. Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan, Respondent.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a Verified Complaint filed by Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman against former Mayor Josemarie L. Diaz and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ilagan, Isabela. Atty. Mandagan alleged that the construction of a barangay health center encroached upon her property without consent, and accused Mayor Diaz of approving the project, misappropriating public funds, and giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor, SMT Construction. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding the allegations unsubstantiated and noting the proper remedy was a civil case for encroachment. Aggrieved, Mayor Diaz filed an administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Mandagan for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by filing a frivolous and meritless complaint. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Mandagan liable and recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty to one year. Atty. Mandagan filed a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Mandagan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when she filed an unsubstantiated and meritless complaint before the Ombudsman against Mr. Diaz.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and upheld the one-year suspension. The Court held that Atty. Mandagan violated Canon 1, and Rules 1.01, 10.01, and 10.03 of the CPR. She failed to present any evidence to support her serious allegations of graft and corruption against Mayor Diaz. In contrast, Mayor Diaz presented substantial evidence, including certifications and documents from the Department of Health, proving the project was a DOH undertaking on public land, and that the city government made no appropriation or disbursement for it. By initiating a baseless complaint, Atty. Mandagan engaged in unlawful conduct, made falsehoods, misused legal procedure, and made a mockery of the judicial process. Her actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth and the proper use of legal remedies, warranting disciplinary action.