Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406

Facts:

The case at bar is a petition for disbarment against Atty. Primo L. Naldoza for appealing a decision which is final and executory, deceitfully obtaining $2,555 from the client allegedly for “cash bond” in the appealed case, and issuing a spurious receipt to conceal the illegal act. Respondent denies that he persuaded complainant to file an appeal and asserted that it was the latter who initiated the action to delay the execution of POEA decision. He also denied the two other charges. Trial procedures were instituted before the IBP.

Meanwhile, a criminal case based on the same facts was filed before RTC Makati, Branch 141. Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly liable in the amount of $2,555. Having been acquitted in the criminal case, he manifested a Motion for Dismissal of the IBP case.

Commissioner Jose brushed aside respondent's contention on the ground that the criminal case for estafa is completely different from the proceedings before him. Acquittal in the former did not exonerate respondent in the latter. He further noted that the RTC Decision itself hinted at the administrative liability of respondent, since it found him civilly liable to herein complainant for $2,555. He was suspended by the IBP for one (1) year. Thus, he appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not respondent should be freed of the administrative proceeding since he was acquitted of the criminal charge.

(2) Whether or not respondent is negligent when he appealed the decision of the POEA knowing it to be final and executory.

Held:

(1) Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

x x x

Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial court’s finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court.

(2) Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory. Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was unappealable. Indeed, the records of this Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for petitioner's failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no leg to stand on.

x x x

WHEREFORE, Primo R. Naldoza is hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys and to inform all courts of this Decision.

No comments:

Post a Comment