AC 3135; (April, 1988) (Digest)
A.C. No. 3135. April 15, 1988. MIGUEL CUENCO, complainant, vs. HON. MARCELO B. FERNAN, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Miguel Cuenco, a lawyer, filed an administrative disbarment case against then Supreme Court Associate Justice Marcelo B. Fernan. The charges stemmed from Justice Fernan’s prior involvement as a private attorney in the protracted estate proceedings of the late Vito Borromeo before his appointment to the judiciary. Cuenco alleged that Justice Fernan improperly influenced the outcome of related consolidated petitions decided by the Supreme Court’s Third Division in 1987, which, among other things, addressed attorney’s fees. In a Resolution dated February 17, 1988, the Court En Banc dismissed the administrative case for utter lack of merit. The Court held that the charges were completely unsupported by evidence and emphasized that a Supreme Court Justice may only be removed via impeachment, not indirectly through disbarment. The Court also required Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned for making unfounded accusations.
Cuenco subsequently filed an untitled pleading treated as a second motion for reconsideration of the 1987 estate decision, a motion for reconsideration of the February 1988 dismissal, and a compliance with the show-cause order. In his pleading, Cuenco reiterated and amplified his accusations without evidence, claiming Justice Fernan predetermined heirs in the estate case, participated in deliberations at his former law office, and improperly influenced the Third Division’s decision. He further challenged the constitutional principle that a Supreme Court Justice is removable only by impeachment.
ISSUE
Whether complainant Miguel Cuenco should be held administratively liable for filing baseless and malicious charges against a member of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, the Court found Atty. Miguel Cuenco guilty of misconduct as a lawyer and an officer of the court. The Court denied all his motions. First, the decision in the consolidated estate cases had long become final and executory, rendering his motion moot. Second, his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied with finality as he again failed to substantiate his “extravagant” and “preposterous” allegations with any proof. The record clearly showed Justice Fernan’s limited and earlier involvement as counsel had ended years before the joint hearings he referenced, and Justice Fernan had properly inhibited himself from the Court’s deliberations, as noted on the decision.
The Court rejected Cuenco’s compliance as totally unsatisfactory. His defense of good faith and being “misunderstood” was untenable given the complete absence of evidence for his grave charges. The Court concluded the accusations were made in bad faith. Lawyers have a duty to uphold the integrity of the courts and should not level serious charges without basis. For this misconduct, Cuenco was severely reprimanded and warned. A more severe penalty was withheld only in consideration of his advanced age, frail health, and prior public service.