Sitaca vs. Palomares

The IBP must conduct an investigation, either adversarial or ex-parte, before it may validly recommend a penalty in a disbarment case. The Court remanded the case because the Commission on Bar Discipline failed to conduct any investigation whatsoever, in violation of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which requires the Investigator to proceed with the investigation upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer.

Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City. Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. was a lawyer whose son, Dunhill Palomares, was the accused in a murder case pending before Judge Sitaca's sala. The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by a judge against a lawyer for allegedly filing a falsified bail bond. The matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation pursuant to the Court's rules on administrative cases against members of the bar.

Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was Criminal Case No. RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares, a son of Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., the respondent in this administrative case. Sometime in September 1997, Atty. Palomares, in representation of Dunhill, filed a bail bond of P200,000.00 to secure the latter's release. The bail bond was purportedly signed and approved by the late Judge Nazar U. Chavez, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City, and with it was a corresponding order of release signed by RTC Branch 18 Clerk of Court Atty. Glenn Peter C. Baldado. When informed of the filing by Atty. Palomares of the bail bond, ostensibly signed by Judge Chavez, Judge Sitaca approved the release of the accused.

When RTC Branch 35 Clerk of Court Atty. Roy P. Murallon later requested Atty. Baldado to forward to the Ozamis City RTC the original records and supporting documents on the bail bond, Atty. Baldado, by then already a practicing lawyer, disavowed the existence of the bail bond. Atty. Baldado wrote to say that per the official records of Cagayan de Oro RTC, Branch 18, the bail bond did not exist, that no approval was made by Judge Chavez, and that no order for the release of Dunhill was issued. Atty. Baldado concluded that the bail bond was a forged document.

Judge Sitaca directed Atty. Palomares to explain. In his letter to Judge Sitaca, Atty. Palomares stated that he was the corporate legal counsel of Bentley House International Corporation, and when the bail application was approved for P200,000.00, he requested the amount from Jonathon Stevenz and Cristina Q. Romarate, Chief Operations Officer and Treasurer, respectively, of Bentley House International Corporation. Instead of giving the money, Stevenz and Romarate proposed to utilize the services of William Guialani. He acceded. Guialani then delivered the release order, which Atty. Palomares immediately presented to the Branch 35 clerk of court of RTC Ozamis City. The clerk of court read the release order and then issued the corresponding order for the release of Dunhill Palomares. Atty. Palomares denied any wrongdoing in connection with the submission of the falsified bail bond and offered, in any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash bond.

Judge Sitaca, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, filed disbarment proceedings against Atty. Palomares. The Court, in its 02nd August 2000 resolution, required Atty. Palomares to comment on the complaint for disbarment. In his comment, Atty. Palomares reiterated his previous explanation to Judge Sitaca. In addition, he intimated that Judge Sitaca was covering up for the negligence of her clerk of court. He claimed that Judge Sitaca was not around when the release order was issued because it was a Saturday and only a skeletal force was in the office. Atty. Palomares said that he had asked the help of Atty. Manuel Ravanera to prove that the bail bond was secured by Guialani who could have possibly been in "cahoots" with some court employees.

In its resolution of 19 March 2003, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In a Report and Recommendation, dated 24 July 2003, Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan held that there was no doubt that the bail bond and order of release were "fictitious." She stated that while there was no conclusive proof that Atty. Palomares had been the author of the fictitious bail and release order, it could not be denied, however, that it was he who presented the papers to the court. Atty. Palomares failed to satisfactorily explain, she stated, why he had to take a circuitous route and secure the services of Guialani despite his claim that he could have easily availed himself of the facilities of other insurance companies. She recommended that Atty. Palomares be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months. The recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on 30 August 2003 in its Resolution No. XVI-2002-81.

• Falsified Bail Bond: Judge Sitaca sought the disbarment of Atty. Palomares for having filed a falsified bail bond, finding his explanation unsatisfactory.
• Cover-up Allegation: Judge Sitaca implicitly rejected Atty. Palomares's claim that she was covering up for the negligence of her clerk of court, as she proceeded with the disbarment complaint.

• Denial of Wrongdoing: Atty. Palomares denied any wrongdoing in connection with the submission of the falsified bail bond, claiming he merely presented the release order delivered by Guialani to the Branch 35 clerk of court.
• Offer to Replace Bond: Atty. Palomares offered, in any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash bond.
• Negligence of Court Personnel: Atty. Palomares intimated that Judge Sitaca was covering up for the negligence of her clerk of court, claiming that Judge Sitaca was not around when the release order was issued because it was a Saturday and only a skeletal force was in the office.
• Third-Party Involvement: Atty. Palomares said that he had asked the help of Atty. Manuel Ravanera to prove that the bail bond was secured by Guialani who could have possibly been in "cahoots" with some court employees.

• Procedural Compliance: Whether the IBP's failure to conduct an investigation, not even an ex-parte one, before issuing its Report and Recommendation violated Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, thereby warranting a remand of the case.

• Procedural Compliance: Yes. The case was remanded to the IBP for further proceedings because no investigation, not even an ex-parte investigation, was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline. Rule 139-B, Section 8 of the Rules of Court requires the Investigator to proceed with the investigation upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer.

• Procedural Compliance: The Court observed that administrative complaints for disbarment are referred to the IBP for formal investigation by the Court after an evaluation of the pleadings submitted. An ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. In this case, it would appear that no investigation, not even just an ex-parte investigation, was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline. The Court cited the prevailing procedure for investigation as expressed in Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Section 3 designates the National Grievance Investigators to investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors. Section 5 provides for service of the complaint upon the respondent, requiring an answer within fifteen days, and allows dismissal only if the complaint does not merit action or if the answer shows it is not meritorious. Section 8 mandates that upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case, with the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths, and that the respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself. If upon reasonable notice the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. The Court held that it must call for the due observance of the foregoing rules, and it was thus constrained to remand the case to the IBP for further proceedings.

• Due process in administrative disbarment proceedings — The respondent in a disbarment case must be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and to be heard by himself and counsel. The Court applied this principle by remanding the case because the IBP failed to conduct any investigation, thereby depriving the proceedings of the required procedural safeguard.

• Ex-parte investigation as a valid alternative — An ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. The Court noted that in this case, not even an ex-parte investigation was conducted, making the IBP's recommendation procedurally defective.

• "In this case, it would appear that no investigation, not even just an ex-parte investigation, was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline." — This passage identifies the procedural defect that warranted the remand of the case to the IBP.

• "The Court must call for the due observance of the foregoing rules, and it is thus constrained to remand the case to the IBP for further proceedings." — This passage states the Court's rationale for remanding the case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the investigation requirement under Rule 139-B.

• Cottam vs. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834, 29 February 2000, 326 SCRA 614 — Cited for the proposition that administrative complaints for disbarment are referred to the IBP for formal investigation by the Court after an evaluation of the pleadings submitted, and that an ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when the respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.

• Section 3, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Designates the National Grievance Investigators to investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors. The Court cited this provision to establish the IBP's duty to investigate.
• Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Provides for service of the complaint upon the respondent, requiring an answer within fifteen days, and allows dismissal only if the complaint does not merit action or if the answer shows it is not meritorious. The Court cited this provision to show the procedural steps required before a recommendation may be made.
• Section 8, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Mandates that upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall proceed with the investigation of the case, and that if upon reasonable notice the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. The Court cited this provision as the controlling rule that was violated by the IBP's failure to conduct any investigation.

• Justice Consuelo M. Ynares-Santiago
• Justice Renato C. Corona
• Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna