Nava II vs. Artuz

A lawyer who commits Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents by deliberately concealing pending cases in official documents to secure judicial appointment, and who uses abusive, offensive, and intemperate language against fellow counsel in official pleadings, is subject to disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and multiple canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II and respondent Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz were adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases. On July 28, 2005, Atty. Nava II filed a Request for Inhibition and Re-Raffle of his client's case before the City Prosecutor's Office where respondent served as Prosecutor, citing their adversarial relationship. Respondent filed a comment thereto containing disparaging remarks against Atty. Nava II and his father. Subsequently, respondent applied for and was appointed as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City on October 9, 2006, despite Atty. Nava II's opposition highlighting her pending administrative and criminal cases. Verification revealed that respondent failed to disclose these pending cases in her Personal Data Sheets submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council.

• On July 28, 2005, Atty. Nava II filed a Request for Inhibition and Re-Raffle of his client's case before the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, citing his adversarial relationship with respondent who was then the investigating prosecutor.
• In her comment dated July 29, 2005, respondent described Atty. Nava II and his father as possessing "barbaric, nomadic and outrageous attitude," referencing an alleged incident where Atty. Nava II kicked someone and his father allegedly punched the same person.
• Respondent further stated in her comment that Atty. Nava II "should not boldly display his bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance in this Office, by virtue of his being the godson of the City Prosecutor."
• Atty. Nava II alleged that respondent falsely and maliciously imputed crimes against him and filed criminal cases before the DOJ intended to harass him.
• Respondent was appointed Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City on October 9, 2006, notwithstanding Atty. Nava II's written opposition dated January 4, 2006.
• In her Personal Data Sheets dated October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006 submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council, respondent failed to disclose pending criminal and administrative cases against her.
• Verification confirmed the existence of pending cases which respondent deliberately concealed to make it appear she was qualified for the judgeship.
• In her defense regarding the falsification, respondent claimed the false statements were mere "error in judgment," asserting she believed the complaints had not ripened into formal charges based on her DOJ clearance.
• Regarding the abusive language, respondent claimed she had no intention to malign or insult but merely wanted to defend her impartiality.

• Atty. Nava II argued that respondent willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned him and his father (who was not a party to the case) in her official comment to his request for inhibition.
• He alleged that respondent falsely and maliciously imputed crimes against him and filed criminal cases before the DOJ clearly intended to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate him.
• He contended that respondent was unfit and incompetent to be appointed as judge as she failed to disclose pending criminal and administrative cases involving her character, competence, probity, integrity, and independence in her Personal Data Sheets.
• He maintained that respondent's conduct violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted Grave Misconduct under Republic Act No. 6713.

• Respondent denied any intention to malign, insult, or falsely accuse Atty. Nava II, claiming she merely sought to defend her impartiality as an investigating prosecutor.
• Regarding the nondisclosure in her Personal Data Sheets, she attributed the false statements to "mere error in judgment," explaining that while aware of complaints, her DOJ clearance led her to honestly believe they had not ripened into formal charges requiring disclosure.
• She argued she was denied due process because the investigating Judge, Vice Executive Judge Danilo P. Galvez, did not inform her of the hearing between the parties.
• She claimed there was no evidence showing she had knowledge of the cases allegedly filed against her or that she received notice requiring her to comment on the same.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether respondent was denied due process in the administrative investigation when the investigating judge allegedly failed to inform her of the hearing between the parties.
  • Whether the Court should admit respondent's Second Motion for Reconsideration filed after the January 10, 2018 Resolution denying her first motion for reconsideration with finality.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent should be disbarred for committing Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents by deliberately concealing pending cases in her Personal Data Sheets submitted for her judicial application.
  • Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, by using abusive, offensive, and intemperate language ("barbaric, nomadic, and outrageous") against fellow counsel and his father in an official pleading.

• Procedural:
  • The Court noted without action respondent's Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration in view of the Resolution dated January 10, 2018 denying with finality her first Motion for Reconsideration.
  • The due process claim regarding the investigation was not sustained as a basis to reverse the findings; the Court proceeded to resolve the case based on the established procedural history and evidence on record.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
  • The deliberate concealment of pending cases in her Personal Data Sheets constituted deceit, dishonesty, and falsification of official documents, violating the Lawyer's Oath and constituting grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138.
  • The use of terms "barbaric, nomadic, and outrageous" to describe fellow counsel and his father, and the imputation that Atty. Nava II displayed "bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance" by virtue of his relationship to the City Prosecutor, violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 prohibiting abusive, offensive, or improper language.
  • Such intemperate language has no place in the dignity of judicial forum and degrades the legal profession.
  • The Court ordered respondent DISBARRED and her name STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.

• Automatic Conversion of Administrative Cases (A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC) — Administrative cases against judges for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification are automatically considered disciplinary proceedings against them as members of the Bar, allowing the Court to impose sanctions for both capacities in one proceeding.
• Duty of Civility Among Lawyers (Canon 8, CPR) — Lawyers must treat opposing counsels with courtesy, dignity, and civility; mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations, and offensive behavior constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
• Membership in the Bar as a Privilege — Membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions; when an attorney is no longer worthy of trust and confidence, the Court has the right and duty to withdraw such privilege.

• "Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren."
• "Such use of intemperate language and aspersions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum."
• "Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same."

• Noble III v. Ailes — Cited for the principle that hurling insulting language to describe opposing counsel is conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.
• Buot v. Jubay — Cited for the rule that conduct degrading the dignity of the legal profession should never be countenanced.
• Roque v. Balbin — Cited regarding lawyers' duties as licensed officers of the court and the consequences of violating professional standards.
• Reyes v. Chiong, Jr. — Cited for the principle that lawyers must conduct themselves honorably and fairly to maintain the dignity of the profession.
• Spouses Nuezca v. Villagracia — Cited for the rule that violations of professional standards expose lawyers to administrative liability.
• Nuñez v. Astorga — Cited regarding the duty of lawyers to treat colleagues with courtesy and respect.
• San Juan v. Venida — Cited for the doctrine that the Court has the duty to withdraw the privilege of membership when an attorney is no longer worthy of public trust.

• Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension including deceit, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath, or willful disobedience of lawful court orders.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful acts.
• Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
• Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from using language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in professional dealings.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from doing any falsehood or misleading the court.
• Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers.
• A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC — Provides for the automatic conversion of administrative cases against judges and court officials who are lawyers into disciplinary proceedings against them as members of the Bar.