A.M. No. 94-1-061-SC. March 29, 1995. ATTY. JOAQUIN YUSECO and BENJAMIN GRECIA, complainants, vs. DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR JUANITO A. BERNAD, respondent.
FACTS

This administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Joaquin Yuseco and his client, Benjamin Grecia, against Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad. The complaint stemmed from a prior disbarment case (Administrative Case No. 3694) filed against Grecia by several doctors and St. Luke’s Medical Center, alleging dishonesty and grave misconduct concerning the alleged theft of pages from a medical chart used as evidence in a civil case. The Supreme Court assigned the investigation of that disbarment case to respondent Bernad, who submitted a report finding Grecia guilty. The Court adopted Bernad’s findings and ordered Grecia’s disbarment in a June 17, 1993 Decision. Grecia’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
Subsequently, Grecia and Yuseco filed this complaint, accusing Bernad of falsification as a public officer under the Revised Penal Code and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They alleged Bernad suppressed facts and made false statements in his investigative report to injure Grecia. Specific charges included failing to furnish Grecia a copy of the report, falsifying facts in the report, and not disclosing an alleged relationship with former Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan, whose brother-in-law was the opposing counsel in the disbarment case. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed a parallel complaint, prompting the Supreme Court to take cognizance.

ISSUE

Whether Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad is administratively liable for the acts complained of, namely: (1) not furnishing a copy of his report to Grecia; (2) falsifying his report by narrating false facts and suppressing evidence; and (3) failing to disclose an alleged bias due to a relationship with the opposing counsel.

RULING

The Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On the first charge, the Court ruled that respondent had no duty to furnish Grecia a copy of his confidential report, which was submitted solely for the Court’s consideration in deciding the disbarment case. The crucial due process requirement was met by furnishing Grecia with the Court’s final decision, not the internal report.
On the second charge, the Court found that the fourteen specific instances of alleged falsification and suppression cited by complainants were the very same issues already raised and thoroughly considered in Grecia’s motion for new investigation and reconsideration in the disbarment case, which the Court had denied. The Court held that what complainants characterized as “suppression” were, in reality, omissions of facts that respondent, in the exercise of his sound judgment as an investigator, deemed immaterial to his findings. This constitutes a legitimate evaluation and appreciation of evidence, not a suppression of truth.
Regarding the third charge of bias, the Court found the allegation of a close personal relationship with the opposing counsel, based merely on Atty. Nolasco being a brother-in-law of former Chief Justice Fernan, to be unsupported by evidence. The Court noted that the disbarment case was assigned to Bernad three months after Chief Justice Fernan’s retirement, and mere acknowledgment of gratitude for an appointment does not establish partiality. Therefore, no basis exists for the charges of falsification, suppression, or violation of anti-graft laws. The complaint was dismissed.