G.R. No. 8168. October 12, 2016
Spouses Edwin B. Buffe and Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Complainants, vs. Sec. Raul M. Gonzalez, Usec. Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., and Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Karen M. Silverio-Buffe was appointed as Prosecutor I of Romblon by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on July 15, 2008. She took her oath before a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge on August 15, 2008, and furnished copies to relevant government offices. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ), then headed by respondent Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, did not receive her official appointment papers for implementation. Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio Almadin sought confirmation from Gonzalez, who subsequently issued a Memorandum Order directing Silverio-Buffe to cease and desist from acting as a prosecutor, threatening her with a charge of usurpation of public office.
The complainants alleged that respondent former Congressman Eleandro Jesus Madrona, acting out of spite due to Silverio-Buffe’s involvement in a civil case against a radio station that had cancelled a contract after airing adverse commentaries against him, influenced Gonzalez and respondent Undersecretary Fidel Exconde to withhold her appointment papers and refuse to administer her oath. They detailed encounters where DOJ personnel indicated her papers were being withheld, and where Gonzalez and Exconde advised her to reconcile with Madrona, which she refused.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents should be disbarred for alleged unethical acts, including the willful violation of Republic Acts and civil service rules by obstructing Silverio-Buffe’s assumption of office.

RULING

The Court dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of merit. The core legal principle applied is that disbarment proceedings are sui generis, focusing on a lawyer’s fitness to remain a member of the Bar, and are not the proper remedy for addressing grievances concerning official acts in a public capacity absent clear proof of gross misconduct violating the Lawyer’s Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court found the complainants’ allegations unsubstantiated by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The acts complained of—withholding appointment papers and issuing a cease-and-desist order—were performed by respondents Gonzalez and Exconde in their official capacities as Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice, respectively. Their actions, even if erroneous, are presumed to have been performed regularly in the course of official duty. The charge against Madrona for undue influence was based on mere allegations and hearsay. The proper recourse for challenging these administrative acts was not a disbarment complaint but an appeal to the Office of the President, or the filing of appropriate administrative or criminal charges with agencies like the Civil Service Commission or the Ombudsman, which have primary jurisdiction over such matters. The Court emphasized that disbarment is an extreme measure reserved for clear cases of misconduct affecting a lawyer’s character and moral fitness, which was not established here.