AC 7828; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 7828 ; August 11, 2008
JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUDE JOSUE L. SABIO, respondent.
FACTS
Judge Alden V. Cervantes, the complainant, was the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cabuyao, Laguna, handling ejectment cases filed by Extra-Ordinary Development Corporation (EDC) against the clients of Atty. Jude Josue L. Sabio, the respondent. During the pendency of these cases, respondent filed motions for complainant’s inhibition, alleging that EDC had given the judge a house and lot, thereby casting doubt on his impartiality. These motions were denied. Following complainant’s optional retirement, respondent filed an affidavit-complaint dated April 6, 2006, seeking an investigation for bribery. The complaint relied on a sworn statement of a court utility worker alleging, among other things, that orders in favor of EDC were prepared outside the court and that a monetary consideration was given per favorable order.
By Resolution dated August 30, 2006, the Supreme Court, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, dismissed respondent’s bribery complaint for lack of merit. The Court found the complaint unsubstantiated and motivated by plain, unfounded suspicion, noting it was filed after the judge’s retirement. Consequently, complainant filed the present disbarment case against respondent for maliciously instituting a groundless administrative suit.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Jude Josue L. Sabio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a groundless and malicious administrative complaint against a judge.
RULING
Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed the modified resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, which found respondent liable for filing a groundless suit. The legal logic is anchored on the duty of lawyers to the courts and the administration of justice. While the Court has a duty to investigate charges against judges, it has an equal duty to shield them from unfounded suits intended to harass.
The Court’s prior dismissal of the bribery complaint established that it was based on mere suspicion and speculation, not on substantial, competent, or direct evidence. The IBP correctly concluded that respondent knowingly instituted a groundless proceeding. By doing so, respondent violated Canons 10, 11, and 12, and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require candor and fairness to the court, respect for judicial officers, and a duty to assist in the efficient administration of justice, and prohibit attributing unsupported motives to a judge. The act of filing an administrative complaint based solely on unfounded allegations undermines judicial integrity and burdens the disciplinary machinery. Accordingly, the Court imposed a FINE of Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos on respondent, with a stern warning.