Administrative charges against lawyers must be substantial, not frivolous. In Domingo v. Rubio, the Supreme Court dismissed a disbarment complaint against two prosecutors for allegedly failing to comply with a Justice Secretary’s order. The Court emphasized that prosecutors have discretion in handling cases and that disbarment is reserved for serious misconduct affecting a lawyer’s moral character. This ruling reinforces the protection of lawyers performing their duties and prevents the abuse of disciplinary actions.

When a Motion for Reconsideration Becomes a Disbarment Case: A Prosecutor’s Duty vs. Personal Grievance

Sandy V. Domingo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Palmarin E. Rubio, the City Prosecutor of Legazpi City, and Atty. Nicasio T. Rubio, the Assistant City Prosecutor. Domingo alleged that the prosecutors refused to act on the Secretary of Justice’s order and fraudulently withheld a motion for reconsideration, causing him prejudice. The case stemmed from a parricide charge against Domingo, where the Secretary of Justice initially ordered the withdrawal of the information. However, the prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration, leading to Domingo’s disbarment complaint, claiming they acted fraudulently and caused him unjust suffering.

The IBP-CBD recommended dismissing the complaint, a decision affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which evaluated whether the prosecutors’ actions warranted disbarment. Domingo argued that the prosecutors’ non-compliance with the Secretary of Justice’s order and delayed filing of the motion for reconsideration justified disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This rule allows disbarment or suspension for “wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.” However, the Court clarified that the Secretary of Justice is not a superior court in this context.

The Supreme Court emphasized that prosecutors have a sworn duty to prosecute crimes and protect public interest. Their decision to file a motion for reconsideration was a valid legal recourse, especially considering new evidence, Domingo’s extrajudicial confession, hadn’t been brought to the Secretary of Justice’s attention. The Court also highlighted the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, meaning the prosecutors’ actions were presumed to be done in good faith unless proven otherwise. Therefore, Domingo’s claim of fraudulent intent lacked justification.

Furthermore, the Court underscored that the trial court, not the Secretary of Justice, has the ultimate authority over the case. Citing Crespo v. Mogul, the Supreme Court reiterated this principle:

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the [public prosecutor] retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.

The RTC ultimately denied the motion to withdraw the information and directed the pre-trial to proceed. The Supreme Court found no basis to impeach the prosecutors’ decision to file the motion for reconsideration. The Court cautioned against trivializing the disbarment sanction. Disbarment is a severe penalty reserved for misconduct that affects a lawyer’s standing and moral character, as emphasized in Heck v. Gamotin, Jr.:

Based on all the established attendant circumstances, the complainant had no legal or factual basis for his disbarment complaint against the respondents. The case involved their official acts as public prosecutors, focusing on how they had proceeded in a pending matter that was entirely within their official competence and responsibility. How they could be held answerable or accountable as lawyers for their official acts escapes us, but at least the Court now gives them some consolation by dismissing the disbarment proceedings as unworthy and devoid of substance.

The Court reiterated that administrative proceedings against lawyers are not alternatives to seeking reliefs from proper offices or agencies. The Court will only exercise its disciplinary power when a lawyer’s administrative guilt is proven by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. This protects the integrity of the legal profession and prevents frivolous charges aimed at harassment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether the actions of the prosecutors in filing a motion for reconsideration against the Secretary of Justice’s order constituted grounds for disbarment.
Why did the complainant file a disbarment case?	The complainant believed the prosecutors deliberately disobeyed the Secretary of Justice’s order, causing him to remain in jail despite the initial order to withdraw the charges against him.
What did the IBP recommend?	The IBP-CBD recommended dismissing the disbarment complaint for lack of merit, a decision that was upheld by the IBP Board of Governors.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision and dismissed the disbarment complaint, finding no legal or factual basis for the charges.
Is the Secretary of Justice considered a ‘superior court’ under Rule 138?	No, the Court clarified that the Secretary of Justice is not equivalent to a superior court as referenced in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
What duty do prosecutors have in criminal cases?	Prosecutors have a sworn duty to prosecute crimes and protect public interest, which includes pursuing valid legal recourses like motions for reconsideration.
Who has the ultimate authority over a criminal case once it’s in court?	The trial court has the ultimate authority, with the discretion to grant or deny motions, including those to withdraw information, based on its judicial prerogative.
What standard of evidence is needed for disbarment?	Disbarment requires clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence of misconduct that affects a lawyer’s standing and moral character.
What is the significance of the presumption of regularity in this case?	The presumption of regularity meant that the prosecutors’ actions were presumed to be done in good faith unless proven otherwise, which the complainant failed to do.

This case underscores the importance of prosecutorial discretion and the high standard required for disbarment proceedings. It protects lawyers from frivolous complaints arising from their official duties. The ruling emphasizes that disciplinary actions should not be used as tools for harassment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Sandy V. Domingo v. Atty. Palmarin E. Rubio and Atty. Nicasio T. Rubio, A.C. No. 7927, October 19, 2016