Misamin Vs San Juan

1
#12 With digest

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. 1418 August 31, 1976
JOSE MISAMIN, complainant,
vs.
ATTORNEY MIGUEL A. SAN JUAN, respondent.
RESOLUTION
FERNANDO, J.:
It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and a
member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be charged with being the legal
representative of certain establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent
and, what is worse, with coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin, to agree to
drop the charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's Bakery,
for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a denial on the part of respondent.
The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor-General for investigation, report and
recommendation. Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of
complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the non- appearance of the
lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings. The efforts of the Solicitor General to
get at the bottom of things were thus set at naught. Under the circumstances, the
outcome of such referral was to be expected. For the law is rather exacting in its
requirement that there be competent and adequate proof to make out a case for
malpractice. Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being dismissed,
This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with hardly any choice.
Respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice.
Respondent, as noted in the Report of the Solicitor-General, "admits having appeared as
counsel for the New Cesar's Bakery in the proceeding before the NLRC while he held office
as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. However, he contends that the law did not
prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his
appearance as counsel, while holding a government position, is not among the grounds
provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys. The respondent
also denies having conspired with the complainant Misamin's attorney in the NLRC
proceeding in order to trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had been
paid his separation pay. Likewise, the respondent denies giving illegal protection to
members of the Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila." 1
Then came a detailed account in such Report of the proceedings: "Pursuant to the
resolution of this Honorable Court of March 21, 1975, the Solicitor General's Office set the
case for investigation on July 2 and 3, 1975. The counsel for the complainant failed to
appear, and the investigation was reset to August 15, 1975. At the latter date, the same
counsel for complainant was absent. In both instances, the said counsel did not file written
motion for postponement but merely sent the complainant to explain the reason for his
absence. When the case was again called for hearing on October 16, 1975, counsel for
complainant failed once more to appear. The complainant who was present explained that
his lawyer was busy "preparing an affidavit in the Court of First Instance of Manila." When
asked if he was willing to proceed with the hearing' in the absence of his counsel, the
complainant declared, apparently without any prodding, that he wished his complaint
withdrawn. He explained that he brought the present action in an outburst of anger
believing that the respondent San Juan took active part in the unjust dismissal of his
complaint with the NLRC. The complainant added that after reexamining his case, he
believed the respondent to be without fault and a truly good person." 2
2
The Report of the Solicitor-General did not take into account respondent's practice of his
profession notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the grounds for the suspension
or removal of an attorney. The respondent's appearance at the labor proceeding
notwithstanding that he was an incumbent police officer of the City of Manila may
appropriately be referred to the National Police Commission and the Civil Service
Commission." 3 As a matter of fact, separate complaints on this ground have been filed
and are under investigation by the Office of the Mayor of Manila and the National Police
Commission." As for the charges that respondent conspired with complainant's counsel to
mislead complainant to admitting having' received his separation pay and for giving illegal
protection to aliens, it is understandable why the Report of the Solicitor-General
recommended that they be dismissed for lack of evidence.
The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint cannot prosper is in
accordance with the settled law. As far back as in re Tionko, 4 decided in 1922, the
authoritative doctrine was set forth by Justice Malcolm in this wise: "The serious
consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear
preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney
is innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court
in accordance with his oath." 5 The Tionko doctrine has been subsequently adhered to. 6
This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever violations there
might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of respondent practicing his profession
while holding his position of Captain in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be
decided in the administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the SolicitorGeneral. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be
inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety.
Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to the
concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever
legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent
in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly
compensated but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant called alien
interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations
as a member of the bar. should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and
misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for
membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who
does not even take care that his honor remains unsullied
WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint against respondent Miguel A. San Juan is
dismissed for not having been duly proved. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his
record.
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Report and Recommendation, 2.
2 Ibid, 2-3.
3 Ibid, 4.
4 43 Phil. 191.
5 Ibid, 194.
6 Cf, Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293 (1936); De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939); In re
Attorney C. T. Oliva, 103 Phil. 312 (1958); Blanza v. Arcangel, Adm. Case No. 492, Sept. 5,
1967, 21 SCRA 1; Magnoy Gellada, Adm. Case No. 767, Dec. 20, 1971, 42 SCRA 549.
Facts: Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesars Bakery in
the proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan
Police. Respondent contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise
of his profession. He contends that his appearance as counsel while holding a government
position is not among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or
removal of attorneys.
Issue: Whether or not the administrative case against the defendant should prosper
Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court ruled that the matter is to be decided in
an administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor General.
Nonetheless, the court held that while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not
be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of
impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from living
true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of
whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was
inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor
be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant called
alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future
actuations as a member of the bar should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts
and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also
for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of

Misamin Vs San Juan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Misamin Vs San Juan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Misamin Vs San Juan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

#12 With digest

You might also like