In re: Resolution dated June 26, 2024 vs. Atty. Alberto

A lawyer who deliberately misleads the IBP by concealing the dismissal of criminal complaints recycled as bases for a disbarment charge, and who repeatedly defies the directives of the Court and the IBP while bearing a record of prior administrative sanctions, commits serious dishonesty warranting the maximum penalty of disbarment.

Atty. Alberto and Atty. Miel were members of the Philippine Bar whose professional paths crossed in circumstances that led Atty. Alberto to file criminal complaints against Atty. Miel for alleged violations of Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, as amended by Republic Act No. 11232), provisions governing corporate books, records, and financial statements. The City Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City had issued resolutions finding no violation by Atty. Miel. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, through its Commission on Bar Discipline, exercises authority delegated by the Supreme Court to investigate disciplinary complaints against lawyers, and the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. Atty. Alberto had been previously sanctioned in two separate administrative cases — a five-year suspension in Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. vs. Atty. Alberto (A.C. No. 12289, April 2, 2019) and a two-year suspension in Anacay vs. Atty. Alberto (A.C. No. 6766, August 4, 2021).

Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Chad Rodolfo M. Miel on June 10, 2016, docketed as CBD Case No. 16-4982, charging the latter with violation of Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation Code. Among the bases of the complaint were factual allegations drawn from two criminal complaints that Atty. Alberto had previously filed against Atty. Miel before the City Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City. What Atty. Alberto did not disclose was that the City Prosecutor's Office had already issued two resolutions finding that Atty. Miel did not violate the cited provisions, effectively dismissing the criminal complaints with finality. At the time he filed the disbarment complaint, Atty. Alberto deliberately concealed these dismissals and misled the IBP-CBD by presenting the already-dismissed criminal complaints as though they were still pending.

The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation dated June 29, 2017, found that Atty. Alberto was "grievously less than candid" in his narration of facts and had "vainly and intentionally hid these dismissals." It concurred with the City Prosecutor's resolutions that Atty. Miel did not violate Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation Code, dismissed the disbarment complaint against him for lack of merit, and recommended that Atty. Alberto be suspended from the practice of law for six months for dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR. The IBP-CBD further found Atty. Alberto guilty of forum shopping for resorting to a disbarment complaint after failing to obtain a favorable outcome at the prosecutor's office.

The IBP-BOG, by Resolution dated May 19, 2018, adopted the dismissal of the case against Atty. Miel but set aside the recommended suspension of Atty. Alberto and referred the charge against him back to the IBP-CBD for investigation to afford him due process. The Supreme Court First Division, by Resolution dated August 7, 2019 in A.C. No. 12472, adopted these factual findings and legal conclusions, dismissed the complaint against Atty. Miel, and referred the charge against Atty. Alberto to the IBP-CBD for investigation.

Pursuant to that referral, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference on February 3, 2020, directing the parties to file their respective pre-conference briefs. Only Atty. Miel filed his; Atty. Alberto did not. The Covid-19 pandemic intervened, rendering physical conferences unworkable, and the IBP-CBD issued an Order dated August 18, 2020 directing the parties to submit official email addresses and contact numbers for online video conference, with the option to waive the mandatory conference and proceed by submission of position papers. Atty. Miel manifested his willingness to waive the conference on November 18, 2020, but nothing was heard from Atty. Alberto. By Order dated March 23, 2021, the IBP-CBD required the parties to submit verified position papers within a non-extendible period of ten days. Again, only Atty. Miel complied; Atty. Alberto did not.

The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation dated April 15, 2022, recommended that Atty. Alberto be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for his dishonest and deceitful conduct, with liability aggravated by his repeated failure to comply with its directives. The IBP-BOG, by Resolution dated September 1, 2022, approved and adopted the recommendation of indefinite suspension and further recommended a fine of PHP 5,000.00 for each count of disobedience — failure to attend the mandatory conference and failure to file a position paper — for a total of PHP 10,000.00. The Supreme Court adopted the factual findings and legal conclusions but imposed the maximum penalty of disbarment, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of prior administrative liability, lack of remorse, and repeated failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP.

• Serious Dishonesty: Whether Atty. Alberto is guilty of serious dishonesty for deliberately concealing the dismissal of criminal complaints and misleading the IBP-CBD into believing they were still pending.
• Applicability of CPRA: Whether the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023, may be applied to a disbarment complaint filed on June 10, 2016 when the former CPR was still in effect.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether disbarment, rather than the indefinite suspension recommended by the IBP, is the proper penalty given the presence of aggravating circumstances.

• Serious Dishonesty: Yes. Atty. Alberto was found guilty of serious dishonesty under Canon II, Sections 1, 8, and 11 of the CPRA for deliberately misleading the IBP-CBD by concealing the dismissal of the criminal complaints he recycled as bases for the disbarment charge against Atty. Miel.
• Applicability of CPRA: Yes. The CPRA applies to all pending and future cases, and its application was not unduly prejudicial because the acts constituting the infractions were punishable under both the CPR and the CPRA.
• Appropriate Penalty: Yes, disbarment was warranted. The presence of aggravating circumstances — prior administrative liability, lack of remorse, and failure to comply with orders of the Court and IBP — with no mitigating circumstances justified the maximum penalty under Canon VI, Section 39 of the CPRA.

• Serious Dishonesty: The quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence, defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Substantial evidence established that Atty. Alberto misled the IBP-CBD into believing that two criminal complaints against Atty. Miel for violation of the Corporation Code were still pending, when in fact they had already been dismissed with finality by the City Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City. The IBP-CBD itself found that Atty. Alberto was "grievously less than candid in his narration of facts" and had "vainly and intentionally hid these dismissals." Drawing on Pancrudo vs. Cajes, Jr., which cited Office of the Ombudsman vs. Espina, the Court classified the dishonesty as serious because it exhibited moral depravity on the part of the respondent — he lied and deceived in order to cause the disbarment of another lawyer. Serious dishonesty is classified as a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33 of the CPRA, sanctionable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The conduct also violated Canon II, Section 8 (prohibition against misleading the court or other government agency) and Section 11 (prohibition against false representations or statements) of the CPRA.

• Applicability of CPRA: The CPRA took effect on May 29, 2023, but its General Provisions, Section 1 states that its provisions shall apply to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. The disbarment complaint was filed on June 10, 2016, when the CPR was still in effect. Under the CPR, acts of deception and misrepresentation aggravated by prior derogatory disciplinary record and blatant disregard of the orders of the Court and IBP constituted grounds for disbarment. The same holds true under the CPRA. Because the acts constituting the infractions committed by Atty. Alberto are punishable under both the CPR and the CPRA, the application of the CPRA in lieu of the old CPR could not be said to be unduly prejudicial to him.

• Appropriate Penalty: Canon VI, Section 38(b) of the CPRA enumerates aggravating circumstances that the Court may appreciate, including: (1) finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed; (6) lack of remorse; and (7) failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP in relation to an administrative case. All three were present. Atty. Alberto had been previously suspended for five years in Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. vs. Atty. Alberto (A.C. No. 12289, April 2, 2019) for notarizing documents without a notarial commission, allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion, and repeatedly failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number, among other infractions. He had also been suspended for two years in Anacay vs. Atty. Alberto (A.C. No. 6766, August 4, 2021) for deceitful conduct involving loans extracted from an elderly blind client through guile and trickery. In both prior cases, he was sternly warned that a similar or repeated offense would merit a more severe penalty. His inexplicable failure to submit his pre-conference brief, position paper, and compliance with the IBP-CBD's directives constituted willful disobedience directed not only against the IBP but against the Court itself, making him also guilty of violating Canon III (Fidelity), Sections 2 and 7 of the CPRA. Under Canon VI, Section 39, where one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose the penalty of disbarment depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating circumstances. Atty. Alberto's underhanded tactics, sly manipulations, blatant and repeated disregard of orders, lack of remorse, and abject arrogance left no redeeming value to his conduct, warranting disbarment.

• Serious Dishonesty — Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity. It is classified into three gradations: serious, less serious, and simple. Serious dishonesty comprises dishonest acts that, among other circumstances, exhibit moral depravity on the part of the respondent, are committed several times or on various occasions, or are committed with fraud and/or falsification of official documents. A dishonest act without the attendance of any of these circumstances is simple dishonesty. In this case, Atty. Alberto's deliberate concealment of the dismissal of criminal complaints to mislead the IBP-CBD into pursuing a baseless disbarment charge exhibited moral depravity, qualifying the dishonesty as serious and warranting the maximum penalty.

• Obligation of Candor Before the IBP — While the IBP-CBD is not a court of law, it draws its authority to investigate from the power granted to it by the Supreme Court. By inference, candor and honesty are demanded of all who seek redress before it. Lawyers who appear before or file complaints with the IBP are bound by the same duties of candor, fairness, and good faith that they owe to courts.

• Willful Disobedience of IBP Directives as Disciplinary Infraction — Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes, and willful disregard thereof subjects the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions. A graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and show respect to their processes. Failure to comply with the directives of the IBP in relation to an administrative case is an aggravating circumstance under Canon VI, Section 38(b)(7) of the CPRA and independently constitutes a violation of Canon III (Fidelity), Sections 2 and 7.

• Aggravating Circumstances in Disciplinary Cases Under the CPRA — Under Canon VI, Section 38(b) of the CPRA, the Court may appreciate as aggravating circumstances: (1) finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed, regardless of nature or gravity; (2) age; (3) number of years in the practice of law; (4) employment of fraudulent means to conceal the offense; (5) respondent's act or omission tainted with bad faith or malice; (6) lack of remorse; (7) failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP in relation to an administrative case; and (8) other analogous circumstances. Under Canon VI, Section 39, if one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose penalties of suspension or fine not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed, or disbarment depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating circumstances.

• Retroactive Application of the CPRA — The CPRA applies to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Where the acts constituting the infraction are punishable under both the former CPR and the new CPRA, application of the CPRA is not unduly prejudicial to the respondent.

• "While this Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court of law, it draws its authority to investigate from the power granted to it by the Supreme Court, and so by inference, candor and honesty are demanded of all who seek the redress of grievance before it." — This passage, drawn from the IBP-CBD's Report and Recommendation and adopted by the Court, articulates the principle that the duty of candor extends to proceedings before the IBP, not only to courts of law.

• "Atty. Alberto has relentlessly brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession. He had been sternly warned that a similar violation would merit a more severe penalty, yet, his palpable disregard of the orders of the Court and the IBP persisted. At this point, the Court cannot turn a blind eye on Atty. Alberto's unfortunate lack of remorse and abject arrogance as evinced by his constant deceitful conduct, and disobedience of the notices and orders of the Court and the IBP. Disbarment, no less, is warranted under the circumstances." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for imposing the maximum penalty, tying together the aggravating circumstances of prior sanctions, lack of remorse, and persistent disobedience.

• "[D]ishonesty, which is defined as the 'disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity,' is classified in three (3) gradations, namely: serious, less serious, and simple." — This is the canonical formulation of the gradations of dishonesty adopted from Office of the Ombudsman vs. Espina via Pancrudo vs. Cajes, Jr., frequently cited in administrative and disciplinary jurisprudence to determine the severity of sanction.

• Pancrudo vs. Cajes, Jr., A.C. No. 11090, July 3, 2023 — Followed for the explication of the concept of dishonesty and its three gradations (serious, less serious, simple), which the Court applied to classify Atty. Alberto's conduct as serious dishonesty exhibiting moral depravity.

• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Espina, 807 Phil. 529 (2017) — Followed as the source of the classification of dishonesty into gradations, cited through Pancrudo vs. Cajes, Jr. for the proposition that dishonest acts exhibiting moral depravity constitute serious dishonesty.

• Rubio vs. Caoibes, Jr., 931 Phil. 718 (2022) — Followed for the proposition that under the CPR, acts of deception and misrepresentation aggravated by prior derogatory disciplinary record and blatant disregard of the orders of the Court and IBP constitute grounds for disbarment.

• Belen vs. Atty. Exconde, A.C. No. 9358, October 4, 2023 — Followed for the rule that the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence.

• Sebastian vs. Atty. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211 (2007) — Followed for the principle that lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes, and willful disregard thereof subjects the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions, with graver responsibility imposed upon lawyers than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts.

• Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. vs. Atty. Alberto, A.C. No. 12289, April 2, 2019, 850 Phil. 1139 — Cited as a finding of previous administrative liability constituting an aggravating circumstance; Atty. Alberto was previously suspended for five years for notarizing documents without a commission, allowing a non-lawyer to sign a motion, and repeated MCLE non-compliance.

• Anacay vs. Atty. Alberto, A.C. No. 6766, August 4, 2021, 909 Phil. 373 — Cited as a second finding of previous administrative liability; Atty. Alberto was previously suspended for two years for deceitful conduct involving loans extracted from an elderly blind client through guile and trickery.

• Canon II (Propriety), Section 1, CPRA — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to hold Atty. Alberto liable for serious dishonesty in concealing the dismissal of criminal complaints to mislead the IBP-CBD.

• Canon II (Propriety), Section 8, CPRA — Prohibits a lawyer from misquoting, misrepresenting, or misleading the court as to the existence or contents of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or from asserting as a fact that which has not been proven. Applied to Atty. Alberto's act of presenting already-dismissed criminal complaints as though they were still pending.

• Canon II (Propriety), Section 11, CPRA — Prohibits a lawyer from making false representations or statements, and requires correction of false or inaccurate statements made in any pleading or document submitted to the court, tribunal, or agency. Applied to Atty. Alberto's false representations in the disbarment complaint.

• Canon III (Fidelity), Sections 2 and 7, CPRA — Section 2 requires a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. Section 7 prohibits a lawyer from filing or encouraging suits without evidentiary support, unduly impeding execution of orders, or abusing court processes. Applied to Atty. Alberto's willful disobedience of IBP-CBD directives.

• Canon VI, Section 33, CPRA — Classifies serious dishonesty as a serious offense, sanctionable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00.

• Canon VI, Section 38(b), CPRA — Enumerates aggravating circumstances in disciplinary cases, including prior administrative liability, lack of remorse, and failure to comply with orders of the Court and IBP. Paragraphs (1), (6), and (7) were appreciated against Atty. Alberto.

• Canon VI, Section 39, CPRA — Provides that where one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose penalties not exceeding double the maximum prescribed, or disbarment depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating circumstances.

• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, CPR — The former provision requiring a lawyer to owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court and prohibiting falsehood or misleading of the court by any artifice. Applied by the IBP-CBD in its initial finding before the case was referred back for due process.

• Sections 74 and 75, Corporation Code (B.P. Blg. 68, as amended by R.A. No. 11232) — Section 74 governs books to be kept by corporations and the stock and transfer book; Section 75 governs the right to financial statements. These were the provisions Atty. Miel was accused of violating and which the City Prosecutor's Office found he did not violate, and which Atty. Alberto recycled as bases for the disbarment complaint while concealing their dismissal.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Leonen, SAJ.; Caguioa; Hernando; Lazaro-Javier; Inting; Zalameda; Gaerlan; Rosario; Lopez; Dimaampao; Marquez; Kho, Jr.; Singh; and Villanueva, JJ., concurred.