A.C. No. 3921. June 11, 2018
Delfina Hernandez Santiago, Complainant, v. Atty. Zosimo Santiago and Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Delfina Hernandez Santiago, then City Personnel Officer of Caloocan City, was granted a 240-day sick leave in 1988. During her leave, she received a memorandum from Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr. cancelling all leaves of absence. She was subsequently detailed to the Office of the Secretary to the Mayor and later directed by respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino to return to work within five days. Complainant requested ten days to respond but did not report for duty. At the end of her leave, she tendered her resignation. She later received a termination memorandum from the Mayor, which enclosed a Resolution dated December 19, 1988, signed by both respondents, recommending her dismissal from service for neglect of duty and insubordination.
Complainant filed this disbarment case, accusing respondents of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of their Attorney’s Oath. She alleged the Resolution contained false statements, particularly that her leave was “initially approved but later disapproved,” that she was summoned for investigation but failed to appear, and that her dismissal was recommended without just cause or due process. She argued these acts constituted unethical conduct warranting disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Zosimo Santiago and Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino committed deceit, gross misconduct, or violated their oaths as lawyers to justify disbarment or disciplinary sanction.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. The Court clarified that the core issue was not the correctness or legality of the administrative Resolution recommending complainant’s dismissal, but whether respondents committed acts as lawyers that reflected moral unfitness to practice law. The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and preponderant.
The Court found complainant failed to meet this burden. Respondents, in their capacities as City Legal Officer and Legal Officer II, were performing official duties in investigating complainant’s case and issuing the Resolution. Their acts were within the scope of their governmental functions. There was no clear and convincing evidence that they made deliberate falsehoods with malicious intent. The alleged inaccuracies in the Resolution, such as the statement about the leave being “later disapproved,” pertained to their assessment of the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the Mayor’s cancellation memorandum. Even if their conclusions were arguably erroneous, this does not automatically equate to deceit or gross misconduct as members of the Bar. An administrative complaint against a lawyer who is a public official cannot be based solely on actions performed in the exercise of official duties, unless there is proof of corruption, clear malicious intent, or willful disregard of ethical duties specific to the legal profession. The Court held that the disbarment case was improperly used as a collateral attack on an administrative personnel action. Since complainant did not prove that respondents acted with moral turpitude in their capacity as attorneys, the complaint was dismissed.