#:(J~

l ~.
§ "''
t ~~~,IY,: 1
-:.,1'#711.I

l\.epublic of tbe tlbilippine~

$,Upreme QCourt
ffelantla
THIRD DIVISION

CLARITA MENDOZA and A.C. No. 11433

CLARISSE MENDOZA, [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301)
Complainants,
Present:

CAGUIOA, J., Chairperson ,

- versus - INTING,
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH, JJ

ATTY. LEMUEL B. NOBLEZA, Promulgated:

ATTY. HONESTO D. NOCHE,*
and ATTY. RANDY C. June 5, 2024
CAINGAL,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is a Verified Complaint 1 for disbarment for gross

ignorance of the law or procedure, violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility 2 (CPR), and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

The instant disbarment complaint stemmed from proceedings before

the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela (Valenzuela OCP).
Complainant Clarita Mendoza (Clarita) is the accused in a criminal case for
unjust vexation (unjust vexation case), while complainant Clarisse Mendoza
(Clarisse) is the accused in another criminal case for violation of Republic Act
No. 7610 (RA 7610 case). Complainants claim that the criminal cases filed

• Deceased as of August 2017, roflo , p. 161 , IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation dated October 30,
2019.
Id. at 1- 8.
The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) became effective on May 30, 2023 .
Based on its Transitory Provision, the CPRA genera lly "app lie[s] to all pending and future cases."
 Decision 2 A.C. No . 11 433
[Formerly CBD Case No . 17-5301]

against them were offshoots of the Resolution 3 dated May 24, 2016 in XV-
17-INV-16B-156 on the preliminary investigation conducted by Senior
Associate City Prosecutor, Atty. Randy C. Caingal (SACP Caingal),
recommended for approval by Deputy City Prosecutor, Atty. Honesto D.
Noche (DCP Noche), and approved by City Prosecutor, Atty. Lemuel B.
Nobleza (CP Nobleza). 4

After the filing of the Jnformations 5 before Branch 270, Regional Trial
Court of Valenzuela City (RTC) against complainants, the latter sought to
question the Resolution and concun-ently pursued the instant disbarment case
against respondents. Specifically, complainants filed on June 13,2016 a Very
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration before the Valenzuela OCP, 6 and the
instant disbarment complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on
July 1, 2016 7 against CP Nobleza, DCP Noche, and SACP Caingal. On July
4, 2016, they filed before the Valenzuela OCP a Manifestation with Ex-Parte
Motion for Early Resolution of "Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,"
attaching therein copies of the disbarment complaints against respondents and
the sitting R TC judge. 8

In response to this, respondents inhibited 9 themselves from resol ving

the Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and refen-ed the case to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) "[t]o erase any cloud of doubt as to the
impartiality of the [Valenzuela OCP] in resolving [the motion] and for
[complainants] to have ... peace of mind." 10 In an Order 11 dated August 9,
2017, Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Olivia L. Torrevillas denied the Very
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by complainants. Pe1iinently, the
DOJ's Order also noted the collateral attack against respondents, viz.:

We find the motion bereft of any merit in as much as [complainants}

resorted to an irrelevant collateral attack on the investigating prosecutor
as well as the Deputy City Prosecutor and City Prosecutor of Valenzuela
City without however having been able to sufficiently establish and clearl y
point out that they have committed grave reversible error in resolving the
instant case. We agree with the findings of the City Prosecutor that there
exi sts probable cause to warrant [complainants ' ] indictment fo r violation of
the crimes charged. 12 (Emphasis supplied)

Meanwhile, in the disbarment complaint, complainants prayed that

respondents should be disban-ed and be meted out the appropriate sanctions
for committing the following offenses:

Rollo, pp. 11 - 12.

i d. at 2, Verifi ed Complaint.
/d.at9- I0 .
6 Id. at 79, Respondents' Verified Position Paper dated September 20, 201 9.
1 i d at I, Verified Complaint.
8
Id at 79, Respondents' Verified Position Paper dated September 20, 201 9.
9 i d at 98- 99 , Respondents' Memorandum dated Jul y 4, 2016.
10
id. at 99.
11
Id. at 101 - 104.
12
Id at 102.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No . 17-5301]

Gross ignorance of the law or Respondents filed the unjust

procedure vexation case with the RTC even
though the penalty for said offense is
arresto menor, which falls under the
jurisdiction of Metropolitan/
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). 13

Respondents filed a Motion for

Consolidation of the unjust vexation
case and the RA 7610 case even
though the unjust vexation case falls
within the jurisdiction of the MTCs
and the RA 7610 case falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTCs. 14

Respondents recommended bail of

PHP 80,000.00 for Clarisse despite
the mandatory prohibition against
excessive bail and without
considering the factors in fixing a
"reasonable amount of bail," as may
be clearly gleaned from the
Resolution itself. 15

Violation of the Code of Respondents filed a falsified/

Professional Responsibility and the fabricated case against Clarita.
Lawyer's Oath Respondents falsely charged Clarita
with committing an offense on or
about February 28, 2016 but there is
no record or basis that the offense
was committed on said date and was
the subject matter of a preliminary
investigation. 16

Respondents filed a falsified/

fabricated criminal case against
Clarisse. Respondents arbitrarily and
falsely alleged that Clarisse had
committed "psychological abuse,
cruelty, and emotional maltreatment"
m the Information even if such
allegation was never claimed by one
of the minor-victims and their
parents, and the allegation was never

13 Id. at 3, Verified Complaint

14 Id.
15 Id. at 4. (Emphasis in the original)
16
Id. at 3-4.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

included Ill the Resolution .

Furthermore, complainants assert
that there is absolutely no evidence
proving this allegation. 17

On September 14, 2016, the Court referred 18 the administrative case to

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. Thereafter, respondents were ordered 19 to submit an Answer
to the complaint. In their Answer20 dated March 31, 2017, respondents argued
as follows:

1) Respondents had correctly filed the Informations with the RTC

sitting as Family Court, considering that the victims were minors,
as indicated in the birth certificates submitted during the
preliminary investigation conducted before the Valenzuela
ocp-21
'
2) Contrary to complainants' misleading statements, respondents
had conducted a preliminary investigation as seen from the case
records· 22
'
3) Based on the documents presented during said preliminary
investigation, there was evidence showing that minor-victims
had suffered psychological abuse, cruelty, and emotional
maltreatment; 23 and

4) The recommended bail is proper pursuant to the DOJ 2000 Bail

Bond Guide, 24 stating that the violation for Section 10(a) of RA
7610 is PHP 80,000.00. 25

Additionally, respondents pointed out that complainants had

manifested during the preliminary investigation that they were ignorant of
legal proceedings, but they suddenly showcased knowledge of laws and rules
in their complaint. Clearly, a lawyer was advising them of the erroneous
application of laws. Respondents claim that this counsel should be subjected
to disciplinary actions by the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) for
violating the Lawyer's Oath, specifically the undertaking to "not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same." 26

17
Id. at 4--6 .
18
Id. at 18 , Notice.
19 Id. at 20- 22, IBP-CBD Order dated March 16, 2017, penned by Commissioner Joel L. Bodegon.
20
Id. at 23-35.
21
Id. at 27.
22
Id. at27- 31.
23 Id.
24
Id. at 41-42 .
25 Id. at 31 - 32.
26 Id. at 32 . (Emphasis in the original)
Decision 5 A.C . No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

In an Urgent Motion for Early Resolution with Waiver of Rights and

Offer ofExhibits/Evidence 27 dated July 27, 2017, complainants waived all the
grounds relied upon in their Verified Complaint for respondents' disbarment,
except the issue on whether respondents had falsified/fabricated the RA 7610
case against Clarisse and submitted the disbarment case for early resolution.

On August 20, 2019, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD

Manuel Joseph B. Ibafiez III (Investigating Commissioner Ibafiez III)
ordered 28 the parties to file their respective verified Position Papers. In
compliance with the order, respondents filed their Verified Position Paper2 9
dated September 20, 2019 and complainants submitted their Position Paper3°
dated October 1, 2019, which indicated that their previous motion dated July
2 7, 201 7 shall serve as their position paper.

On October 30, 2019, Investigating Commissioner Ibafiez III issued a

Report and Recommendation 31 to dismiss the disbarment complaint against
respondents, viz.:

In sum, the undersigned is of the considered belief that . . .

respondents fully and properly performed the duties and functions expected
of them as public prosecutors . . . Thus, it is respectfully recommended that
the instant Disbarment Complaint against respondents be dismissed for lack
of merit.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED[.] 32 (Emphasis in the original)

In a Resolution 33 dated June 13, 2020, the IBP Board of Governors

(IBP-BOG) approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of
Investigating Commissioner Ibafiez III, viz.:

RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and

ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case to DISMISS the case, after finding
the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules. 34 (Emphasis in the original)

After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court adopts
the IBP' s findings of fact and recommendation to dismiss the disbarment
case against respondents.

At the outset, it bears underscoring that respondents are all government

lawyers working for the Valenzuela OCP and in response to their issuance of
the Resolution dated May 24, 2016 and the filing of the Informations against
complainants with the Family Court, complainants pursued two remedies:

27
Id. at 53-58.
28 Id. at 74, Order dated August 20, 2019 .
29
Id. at 76-95 .
30
Id. at 141-142.
31
Id. at 157-164.
32
Id. at 164.
33 Id. at 155- 156.
34
Id. at 155.
 Decision 6 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

(1) questioning the Resolution before the Valenzuela OCP and eventually,
the DOI; and (2) filing the instant disbarment case against respondents (as
well as the sitting judge in the Family Court where the cases were filed).
Notably, in the disbannent complaint, complainants allege that respondents'
prosecutorial functions have been exercised in gross ignorance of the law or
procedure and in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.

The goal of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and Accountability35
(CPRA) to curb the practice of "effective
forum shopping"

On April 11, 2023, the Court approved the CPRA. 36 Save for ce1iain
exceptions, 37 the CPRA governs disbannent cases against government
lawyers. Pertinent provisions of the CPRA read:

SECTION 2. How instituted. - Proceedings for the disbarment,

suspension, or discipline of lawyers may be commenced by the Supreme
Court on its own initiative, or upon the filing of a verified complaint by the
Board of Governors of the IBP, or by any person, before the Supreme Court
or the IBP. However, a verified complaint against a government lawyer
which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar shall only be
filed in the Supreme Court.

A verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court may be referred

to the IBP.for investigation, report and recommendation, except when filed
directly by the IBP, in which case, the verified complaint shall be referred
to the Office of the Bar Confidant or such fact-finding body as may be
designated.

SECTION 6. Complaint against a government lawyer. - When a

complaint is filed against a government lawyer, the Investigating
Commissioner shall determine, within five (5) calendar days fi·om
assignment by raffle, whether the concerned agency, the Ombudsman, or
the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. If the allegations in the complaint touch
upon the lawyer's continuing obligations under the CPRA or if the
allegations, assuming them to be true, make the lawyer unfit to practice the
profession, then the Investigating Commissioner shall proceed with the
case. Otherwise, the Investigating Commissioner shall recommend that the
complaint be dismissed. 38 (Emphasis supplied)

35 A.M. No. 22-09-0 I-SC, April 11 , 2023 [Notice, En Banc].

36 Suprem e Court Ofjicially Launches th e Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountabilily,
SUPREME COURT WEBS ITE, April 18, 2023 , available at https: //sc.judiciary.gov.ph/supreme-cou11-
officially-launchesthe-code-of-profess ional-responsibility-and-accountability/ (last accessed on May 16,
2024).
37 GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION I. Transitory provision. - The CPRA shall be app lied to a ll pending and future cases ,
except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Cou11, its retroactive app li cation would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed sha ll
govern.
38
Canon VI.
 Decision 7 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

As seen from the provisions above, after the Court's referral of the
case, the Investigating Commissioner shall preliminarily detennine under
whose jurisdiction the case falls. This ensures that at an early stage, there can
already be a recommendation by the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss
the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In this regard, it is worth noting that even prior to the effectivity of the
CPRA, the Court has been acutely aware of-and has attempted to address-
effective forum shopping against government lawyers. In Guevarra-Castil
v. Trinidad39 ( Guevarra-Castil), the Court laid out rules on the filing and
handling of complaints against government lawyers, to serve as guidelines
for both the Bench and the Bar. Pertinently, the Court emphasized therein the
rationale for the issuance of such jurisprudential guidelines, viz.:

Further, owing to the sui generis nature of a disbarment complaint

as with impeachment, forum shopping can neither be invoked by a
government lawyer against whom separate complaints have been filed. The
Court emphasizes that it is not unaware of this unethical practice - which
may be called effective forum shopping - whereby complainants
weaponize the law and file, successively or simultaneously, multiple
complaints against government lawyers: usually one before the IBP, and
another before the concerned agency. While technically, there is no forum
shopping as the reliefs commonly sought are different, such is a practice
that should strongly be shunned/or it serves no other purpose than to vex
government lawyers. 40 (Emphasis supplied)

The above explanation makes it clear that the Court's guidelines

therein were geared towards curbing or deterring the practice of effective
forum shopping. While the rules on handling complaints against
government lawyers may have been recast when the CPRA became effective,
this same rationale continues to animate the disciplinary procedure against
government lawyers in the CPRA.

At this juncture, it is important to expound on the nature of the IBP

Investigating Commissioner's determination under Section 6 of the CPRA.

Keeping in mind the Court's goal of curbing and deterring the practice
of effective forum shopping, it is clear that Section 6 of the CPRA was never
meant to straitjacket the Investigating Commissioner to merely make a
cursory reading of the complaint to check whether there are any claims
hinting at ethical violations committed by the government lawyer and
thereafter proceed with assessing the case on the merits. Indeed, the part in
Section 6, which echoes Guevarra-Castil, simply states that "[i]f the
allegations in the complaint touch upon the lawyer's continuing obligations
under the CPRA or if the allegations, assuming them to be true, make the
lawyer unfit to practice the profession, then the Investigating Commissioner
shall proceed with the case." 41 It bears emphasis, however, that this
39
A.C. No. 10294, July 12, 2022 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
40 Id. at 7-8. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court
website.
41
CPRA, Canon VI.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

instruction must always appreciate the context of the disbarment complaint.

An opposite reading of Section 6 will always allow for a disciplinary case
against government lawyers to prosper. To illustrate, as in this case,
assuming the allegations against respondents that they fabricated criminal
charges against complainants were true, that would ce1iainly make
respondents unfit to practice law. This very low threshold, however, reduces
the Court's jurisprudential pronouncements against effective forum shopping
into mere lip service because this mechanical interpretation will never be able
to detect, or at all prevent, effective forum shopping.

Several cases illustrate how, in determining jurisdiction, the Court's

manner of sifting through the allegations of the complaint takes into
consideration the context in which the disbarment complaint was filed, as
opposed to just mechanically applying the directive to proceed with the case
as long as there are allegations touching upon the lawyer's continuing
obligations under the CPRA.

In Rodullo v. Atty. Gurango-Mendoza, 42 respondent prosecutors

(namely, Assistant City Prosecutors and a City Prosecutor) were charged
with violation of Canon 6 of the CPR, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance
of the law because, in issuing a Resolution unfavorable to complainants, they
allegedly "blatantly [ignored] the pieces of evidence on record. " 43 Examining
the context of the case against respondents, the Court therein dismissed the
case for lack jurisdiction--despite the ostensible allegations of violation of
the CPR-because, among others, the Court determined that "[t]he cause of
action against respondents solely pertains to the performance or discharge of
their official duties as investigating prosecutors and city prosecutor." 44
Notably, this case involved an administrative complaint against government
lawyers which was filed after complainants failed to have respondents'
assailed Resolution reconsidered.

In Bagamasbad v. Atty. Dino, 45 complainant filed a disbarment case

against respondent in his capacity as Deputy General Counsel of Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for acting unfavorably on complainant's report
against the president of Banco de Oro (BDO) by dismissing the same for lack
of jurisdiction. Pertinently, while the complaint had alleged respondent's
supposed violation of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath, the Court looked at
the context of the disbarment complaint and determined that "the instant
administrative complaint [is] a pure harassment suit" 46 since another
complaint was also filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. Further, the
Court underscored therein that "respondent's accountability as an official
performing or discharging his official duties is always to be differentiated
from his accountability as a member of the Philippine Bar." 47 Since the
charges in the complaint pertained to respondent's performance or discharge
42 A.C. No. 13 727 , July I 0, 2023 [Notice, Second Division] .
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 A.C. No. 13578 , August 30, 2023 [Notice, Third Division].
46 Id.
47
Id. (Citation omitted)
 Decision 9 A.C. No . 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-530 I]

of his official duties as Deputy General Counsel of the BSP, the Court stated
that "jurisdiction properly lies with the Ombudsman and, by virtue of Section
17 of the New Central Bank Act, as amended, the BSP Governor. " 48

In the same vein, while being a precursor of the CPRA, the Court
likewise carefully examined the context of the case to determine jurisdiction
before proceeding with assessing the merits of the disbarment case in
Guevarra-Castil, which involved a respondent lawyer/police officer who had
an illicit affair with another married police officer. Notably, the Comi held
therein that respondent's conduct did not relate to, or was not remotely
accomplished by virtue of, her position as a police officer. In other words,
before proceeding with a ruling on the merits, the Court determined that the
allegations in the complaint had explicitly established that respondent should
be disciplined in her capacity as a lawyer, not as a public employee or
official.

To be sure, if the Investigating Commissioner were only broadly

tasked under Section 6 of the CPRA to proceed with the case automatically
if there are any claims suggesting ethics violations of government lawyers-
regardless of any other circumstances-the Court's efforts in curbing
effective forum shopping will easily be defeated. Cunning complainants need
only to suggest, even vaguely and without substance, the bad faith in the
government lawyers' official acts, knowing fully well that even if the
disbarment complaint will be dismissed eventually for lack of merit, their
goal of vexing the government lawyers would have already been
accomplished when the disciplinary proceedings eventually force
government lawyers to defend themselves twice in the discharge of their
official functions, both in disbarment and administrative proceedings.

Section 6 of the CPRA was precisely introduced by the Cou1i to

efficiently weed out the practice of effective forum shopping for the
protection of public servants because, at this early stage of the disciplinary
proceedings, government lawyers are not yet required to take attention out
of their regular duties to defend their official actions by filing various
pleadings (e.g., Verified Answer, 49 Preliminary Conference Brief, 50 and
Verified Position Paper51 ) and attending clarificatory hearings, 52 if any. In
this regard, the Investigating Commissioner is tasked to determine whether
the jurisdiction over the case belongs to the concerned agency, the
Ombudsman, or the Court. This empowers the Investigating Commissioner
to immediately recommend the dismissal of cases subject to the Court's
adoption and approval, especially when the disbarment complaints take on
the form of effective forum shopping. In other words, if the allegations in
the complaint fail to tender an independent and/or genuine unethical
violation committed by the government lawyer in performing their official

48
Id. (Citation omitted)
49
CPRA, Canon VI , sec. 14.
5
° CPRA, Canon VI , sec. 20.
51
CPRA, Canon VI , sec. 2 1.
52
CPRA, Canon VI , sec. 22.
 Decision A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

functions, and the circumstances of the case ostensibly resemble effective

forum shopping because complainants really want to question the correctness
of the official acts of the government lawyers in the disbarment complaint,
then the Investigating Commissioner is empowered to recommend its
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction to the Court.

Indeed, considering the breadth of the CPRA (which encompasses

most aspects of a lawyer's life) and the ease by which unethical conduct of
government lawyers can be alleged by harassers without basis, the
determination to proceed in evaluating the case on the merits and going
through the whole process of disciplinary proceedings should be exercised
with caution and deliberation, as directed by the CPRA itself. Otherwise,
complainants who file sham disbarment complaints can achieve their goal of
vexing government lawyers as long as they hurdle the very low bar of
suggesting unethical conduct, which they often do through the mere citation
of the Lawyer's Oath or the Canons of the CPRA. This will result in routinely
subjecting government lawyers to lengthy disciplinary proceedings,
requiring them to file pleadings and attend hearings to prove the correctness
of the performance of their official functions therein.

In this regard, consistent with the CPRA's stance against effective

forum shopping for the protection of government lawyers, it is impo11ant to
emphasize the CPRA's mandate to first determine under whose jurisdiction
the case belongs before proceeding to decide the case on the merits. This
determination by the Investigating Commissioner will result in a
recommendation to dismiss the case, which the Com1 may then decide not
to accept should it find compelling reasons to proceed with the merits.

This case should be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction, but the circumstances
compel the Court to dismiss the case
based on the merits.

Here, the disbarment complaint contains allegations of unethical

conduct, namely "Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure" and "Violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath."
However, a closer assessment of the allegations will readily reveal that the
intention is really to question the correctness of respondents' official actions
while using certain phrases hinting at unethical conduct to successfully pass
off as an ostensible disbarment complaint:

Alleged offense Acts complained of purportedly

constitutin "unethical conduct"
Gross ignorance of the law or Respondents filed the unjust
Procedure vexation case with the "wrong
court."
Respondents filed the Motion for
Consolidation of the two criminal
 Decision 11 A. C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

cognizable by courts of different

jurisdictions.
Respondents recommended
"excessive bail."
Violation of the Code of Respondents falsely charged Clarita
Professional Responsibility and the with committing an offense on or
Lawyer's Oath about February 28, 2016, but there is
no record or basis that the offense
was committed on said date and was
the subject matter of a preliminary
investigation because the subject of
the preliminary investigation was an
incident that happened on February
8, 2016.
Respondents falsified/fabricated the
RA 7610 case against Clarisse. The
evidence does not prove that Clarita
had violated RA 7610.

From the allegations above, in addition to the fact that complainants

had concurrently assailed-and failed to overturn-the May 24, 2016
Resolution of respondents, it is clear that this is another instance of effective
forum shopping designed to harass government lawyers. As mentioned,
complainants' use of this unsavory tactic was also observed by the DOJ,
which noted the collateral attack against respondents when it denied
complainants' motion to reconsider the assailed Resolution for lack of merit.
In view of the foregoing-had the CPRA already been effective when the
case was referred to the Investigating Commissioner-the Investigating
Commissioner should have already recommended its dismissal to the
Court for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 6 of the CPRA.

Unfortunately, since the proceedings happened before the CPRA

became effective and the Investigating Commissioners were not yet
explicitly empowered to recommend the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction, the goal of complainants in employing their devious strategy of
effective forum shopping was already accomplished: they were able to
successfully weaponize and exploit the rules to vex and punish respondents-
government lawyers for an outcome unfavorable to complainants resulting
from respondents' performance of official duties. Consequently,
respondents here were forced to take their full focus out of their regular tasks
and day-to-day responsibilities to justify and defend the correctness of their
official actions in an improper forum, i.e., in the context of disbarment
proceedings. As borne out by the records, respondents were constrained to:
(1) prepare and submit their Verified Answer; 53 (2) attend the mandatory
conference, even if complainants themselves were absent; 54 (3) prepare and
submit their Mandatory Conference Brief; 55 ( 4) prepare and submit their
53
Rollo , p. 20 , IBP-CBD Order dated March 16, 2017.
54
Id. at 45 , IBP-CBD Order dated Jul y 6, 2017 .
55
Id. at 46- 51.
Decision 12 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

Verified Position Paper; and (5) inhibit from their regular duties in the
criminal cases involving complainants to remove any doubt as to their
impartiality. 56

Surely, the old regime of conducting full-blown inquisitions against

government lawyers every single time a complainant hurdles the very low
bar of hinting or barely suggesting respondents' unethical conduct cannot be
countenanced, especially now that the CPRA is already replete with
measures ensuring that the Court can ably root out those truly not fit to
practice the profession. It is worth emphasizing that every time clearly-sham
disbarment complaints against government lawyers are dignified by going
through all the steps of the disciplinary proceedings-perhaps with the
misguided assurance that justice will be served anyway since the cases will
be dismissed on the merits eventually-everyone's time and resources
(especially the government's) will be squandered, except for complainants',
because they do not even have to show up during the disciplinary proceedings
or file pleadings other than the verified complaint to ensure the
commencement and continuation of the disciplinary process against
government lawyers. Notably, Section 16 of the CPRA provides that
investigations will not be interrupted or terminated by desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal, or failure to prosecute. Section 24 of
the CPRA also states that non-appearance of the parties shall be deemed a
waiver of their right to participate. Put simply, complainants are not
adversely affected if they lose interest or merely decide to abandon
participation in the case, knowing that the Court or the IBP will proceed with
the witch-hunt against the government lawyers anyway.

That being said, the Court may still dismiss the instant disbarment
case for lack of jurisdiction because despite the baseless claims of unethical
conduct, a closer examination of the allegations will readily reveal that
complainants are really questioning the correctness of respondents'
performance of official functions. Indeed, referring this administrative
complaint to the Ombudsman will be in keeping with Section 13( 1), Article
XI of the 1987 Constitution, which authorizes the Ombudsman to
"[i]nvestigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient."

Nevertheless - since the damage has already been done, such that
respondents have already been constrained to defend their official actions in
disbarment proceedings and because referring this matter to another agency
will continue to prolong the clearly unmeritorious proceedings against
respondents - the Court shall very well decide on the merits in this case to
end the protracted controversy.

Section 32 of the CPRA provides for the quantum and burden of proof
in administrative cases, viz.:

56 Id. at 98-99 , Respondents ' Memorandum dated July 4, 2016.

 Decision 13 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]
SECTION 32. Quantum and burden ofproof - In administrative
disciplinary cases, the complainant has the burden ofproofto establish with
substantial evidence the allegations against the respondent. Substantial
evidence is that amount ofrelevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, complainants completely failed to present substantial evidence

to establish their allegations of "Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure"
and "Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's
Oath," and, in fact, lied in their complaint to make it appear that respondents
had committed unethical conduct, as seen from the records.

Regarding the claim that respondents had allegedly filed the unjust
vexation case with the "wrong court" and the claim that respondents had
erroneously filed the Motion for Consolidation of the two criminal cases even
if purportedly they are cognizable by courts of different jurisdictions, these
allegations are not meritorious because the victims in the unjust vexation case
and the RA 7610 case are minors. Thus, the jurisdiction to try the case is
correctly within the Family Courts. 57

Anent the allegation that respondents recommended "excessive bail,"

complainants presented no proof on this allegation in the complaint. On the
other hand, respondents were able to show that the recommended bail is
pursuant to the DOJ 2000 Bail Bond Guide, which clearly pegs the amount
of bail for the violation of Section l0(a) of RA 7610 at PHP 80,000.00.

On the claim that respondents had "falsified/fabricated" the unjust

vexation case against Clarita and that there was no preliminary investigation
conducted for an offense that happened on February 28, 2016, this is easily
debunked by an examination of the case records showing that a preliminary
investigation was indeed conducted. Apparently, this claim is also
complainants' convoluted manner of: (1) pointing out that the date of the
offense stated in the Informations (February 28, 2016) does not match the
date of the offense (February 8, 2016) in the Resolution; and (2)
misrepresenting this error as an unethical act of fabricating/falsifying a case.
Investigating Commissioner Ibafiez Ill's discussion on this unmeritorious
allegation is well-taken, viz.:

Second, and referring to the third issue (Falsification of charge of

Unjust Vexation), We are inclined to think that the referral to " February 28,
2016" is, as respondents maintain, a typographical or clerical error,
especially considering that all other records and evidence submitted refer to

57 An Act Establishing Family Courts, Granting Them Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Child and
Family Cases, Amending Batas Pamban sa Bilang 129, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes, Republic Act No.
8369, sec. 5, approved on October 28 , 1997, provides:
SEC . 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts.- The family courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen ( I 8) years of age but
not less than nine (9) years of age, or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of th
commission of the offense[.]
 Decision 14 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]
February 8, 2016 . Nevertheless, this is also not a novel nor fatal issue. For
criminal offenses where the date of commission is not a material element,
it is not necessary to allege such date with absolute certainty, it only being
necessary under the Rules of Court, that the same be approximated. In fact,
it is not fatal to the prosecution if subsequently, the allegation in an
[Information] with respect to the date of commission is different from the
one established during the trial. In such cases, the [Iriformation] is generally
supplanted by the evidence presented during the trial or even corrected by
a formal amendment of the [I11formation] .58 (Citations omitted)

As regards the allegation that respondents had falsified/fabricated the

RA 7610 case against Clarisse because the evidence does not prove that
Clarita had committed such a violation, there is absolutely no proof in the
complaint that respondents committed bad faith in issuing the Resolution and
filing the Information against Clarisse. Besides, as mentioned, the DOJ
already agreed with respondents' finding of probable cause to indict them of
the offenses charged.

All in all, the Court agrees with Investigating Commissioner Ibanez

III' s finding that "respondents fully and properly performed the duties and
functions expected of them as public prosecutors of Valenzuela City." 59
Thus, this disbarment complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. In any
event, as noted by Investigating Commissioner Ibanez III, DCP Noche has
already passed away sometime in August 2017. 60 Thus, the administrative
case against him is automatically dismissed pursuant to Section 12, Canon
VI of the CPRA which states that "[t]he death of the lawyer during the
pendency of the case shall cause its dismissal."

A final note

To recall, in their Answer, respondents had observed that a lawyer was

clearly advising complainants of the e1Toneous application oflaws and claim
that this counsel should be subjected to disciplinary actions for violating the
old Lawyer's Oath, specifically the undertaking to "not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
consent to the same." 61 Based on the foregoing discussion, this suggestion is
well-taken and the assisting counsel would have been subjected to an
administrative case had it not been for the fact that no assisting counsel
signed complainants' pleadings, presumably because said assisting counsel
knew of the baselessness of the allegations in the disbarment complaint and
feared punishment. It bears emphasizing that while the Lawyer's Oath has
been updated upon the effectivity of the CPRA, the undertaking to not do
falsehood and to not pervert the law remains, as seen in the Revised Lawyer's
Oath: "I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor
prejudice anyone."

58 Rollo, p. I 62 , IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation dated October 30, 20 I 9.

59
Id. at 164 .
60
Id at 161.
61 Id. at 32 , Respondents ' Answer dated March 31 , 2017. (Emphasis in the original)
Decision 15 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

This is yet another reason for the Comito repeat that, before subjecting
government lawyers to the full extent of disciplinary proceedings, the CPRA
mandates that jurisdiction must first be determined with caution. That sham
disbarment proceedings will eventually be dismissed for lack of merit
anyway is never a justification to ignore this clear requirement, lest the Court
and the IBP be passive instruments to the misuse of disciplinary proceedings
as a reliable and predictable means to routinely vex and punish public
servants for doing their jobs.

With the issuance of the CPRA, the Court stands by its constitutional
mandate 62 "to regulate the admission to, and the practice of law, which
necessarily includes the authority to discipline, suspend, or even disbar
misbehaving members of the legal profession, whenever proper and called
for." 63 Even as it continues to exercise this duty, the Court is keenly aware
that its disciplinary processes may be exploited, abused, and weaponized by
unsavory characters. This is precisely why the Court has introduced measures
to guard against such misuse in the CPRA, including the directive to ensure
proper jurisdiction in cases involving government lawyers.

ACCORDINGLY, the disbarment complaint against respondents

Atty. Lemuel B. Nobleza, Atty. Honesto D. Noche, 64 and Atty. Randy C.
Caingal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

62 CONST. , art. VIII , sec. 5, par. 5, which states:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concern ing the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniforlll for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish , increase, or modify substantive
rights . Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shal l
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
63 Guevarra-Cast ii v. Trinidad, supra note 39, at 5. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision
uploaded to the Supreme Court website .
64 The administrative case against him is automatically dismissed pursuant to Section 12, Canon VI of the
CPRA .
Decision 16 A.C. No. 11433
[Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5301]

WE CONCUR:

HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING

Associate Justice

SAM~lt. b~N
Associate Justice