A.M. No. 1473. April 27, 1978.
BENEDICTO E. ENERIO, complainant, vs. JOVENCIO S. ORCULLO and MIGUEL C. RELAMPAGOS, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Benedicto E. Enerio filed this disbarment case against City Fiscal Jovencio S. Orcullo and Assistant City Fiscal Miguel C. Relampagos of Tagbilaran City. He alleged they committed malicious, unlawful, and unprofessional acts by filing two identical and allegedly groundless libel informations against him before the Court of First Instance of Bohol. The complainant asserted the informations falsely narrated that his letters to a Register of Deeds and a Clerk of Court were “open letters” and were caused to be read by many persons, when they were privately sent and received. He later added a fourth charge, claiming the respondents submitted a falsified sworn letter-complaint as an annex to their answer in this administrative case.
The respondents, in their joint answer, detailed that the libel cases originated from formal complaints filed by the alleged victims. Assistant Fiscal Relampagos conducted a preliminary investigation, initially dismissed the complaints, but upon a meritorious motion for reconsideration, conducted a re-hearing and subsequently recommended the filing of informations, which were approved by Fiscal Orcullo. The criminal cases were eventually provisionally dismissed by the trial court upon the prosecution’s motion, based on affidavits of desistance from the complainants and with the express consent of the accused, Atty. Enerio himself.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents committed malicious prosecution or unethical conduct warranting disciplinary action by filing the libel informations against the complainant.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint and exonerated the respondents. The legal logic rests on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and the complainant’s failure to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. The records, including the investigation by the Solicitor General, showed that the respondents proceeded with due deliberation and regard for the complainant’s rights. The preliminary investigation was conducted properly under Republic Act No. 5180 , a fact affirmed by the trial court when it denied the complainant’s various motions alleging irregularities. The filing of the informations was based on the investigating fiscal’s finding of a reasonable ground to believe the offense was committed after a reinvestigation, which is within his official discretion. The subsequent dismissal of the criminal cases based on desistance does not, by itself, prove that the initial filing was malicious or groundless. The Court found the complainant failed to substantiate his charges, noting he had previously raised similar allegations before the Department of Justice and during the criminal trial, all of which were found wanting. The Court warned the complainant to be more circumspect in filing complaints against fellow lawyers to avoid unduly burdening the courts and harassing public officials.