Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila

l\epnlllic of tbe i~bilippineg
~upreme ~ourt
fflnnila
FffiST DIVISION
PASTOR ABARACOSO A.C. No. 11087

MACAVENTA, [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5 112]
Complainant,
Present:
PERALTA, CJ, Chairperson,

- versus - CAGUIOA,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, and
ROSARIO, JJ.
ATTORNEY ANTHONY C. Promulgated:

NUYDA,
Respondent. OCT 1 2 2020
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before us is an Administrative Complaint 1 filed by Pastor Abaracoso

Macaventa (Macaventa) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-CBD) against the respondent Atty.
Anthony Nuyda (Atty. Nuyda), the Regional Director (RD) of the Department
of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Regional Office VI, for gross
neglect of duty for delaying or refusing to comply with a referral or directive
of the Ombudsman, allegedly violating Canon 1, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The facts are as follows.
On December 14, 2015, Macaventa filed the present Administrative

Complaint2 against Atty. Nuyda. The complainant alleged that, the respondent
committed gross neglect of duty as the latter delayed or refused to comply
Rollo, pp. 2-6.
Id.
Decision -2- A.C. No. 11087
[Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5112]
with a referral directed by the Ombudsman or any of its deputies against the
office or employe e to whom it was addressed. On October 19, 2015, a
1
Dismissal Order against Capiz Governor Victor Tanco, Sr. ( Governor Tanco)
and his son Vladimir Tanco (Vladimir) was received by the DILG Central
Office. According to the complainant, the Dismissal Order3 was served
against Mr. Vladimir Tanco on October 28, 2015, but not to his father and co-
accused Governor rranco.
I
In its official website, the DILG justified the delay of the

implementation of the said order against Governor Tanco. It reasoned that it
will seek first a 9larification from the Office of the Ombudsman ( 0MB)
regarding the application of the Aguinaldo Doctrine. Due to this, the
complainant claim9 that it is the duty of the DILG, as an implementing agency
of the order of the Office of the Ombudsman, to implement the order and not
to question it.
For the above reasons, the complainant concluded that it is very clear
that Atty. Nuyda as the RD of the DILG Regional Office VI, committed a
Gross Neglect of Duty as he vehemently delayed and refused to comply with
the directive of the 0MB.
On the other 1hand, the respondent filed his Comment4 on June 2, 2016.
According to the respondent, he was just following the orders of his superior,
Undersecretary Austere A. Panadero ( Usec. Panadero) of the DILG to await
further advice on the implementation of the dismissal of Governor Tanco of
• I -
Cap1z. On October 22, 2015, Usec. Panadero wrote a Letter) dated October
22, 2015 to Assistant Ombudsman Jennifer J. Manalili seeking clarification
I
as to the applicability of the Aguinaldo doctrine in relation to the decision of

the 0MB dismissing Governor Tanco from service. The move by Usec.
Panadero was in ac~ordance with the standing arrangement between the DILG
1
and the 0MB where officials of the DILG were advised to seek prior
clarification with the 0MB should there be issues that arise on the
implementation of the latter's decisions.
In addition, Usec. Panadero issued a Memorandum6 dated October 22,

2015 directing the respondent to cause immediate implementation of the
0MB Decision7 only against Vladimir. The said Memorandum was received
by the respondent on October 23, 2015 and, on the same day, he immediately
issued a Memorandum addressed to Clyne B. Deocampo, Provincial Director
of the DILG in Capiz, directing her, in turn, to immediately implement the
dismissal of Vladimir from the service.
5
6
Id. at 38-39.
Id. at 9-47.
Id. at41-42.
Id. at 22-23.
~
Id. at 25-35.
Likewise, the respondent issued two (2) other Memoranda, 8 both dated
October 23, 2015, one issued to Vladimir directing him to cease and desist
from performing the functions of the Office of the Security Officer III
immediately upon receipt of the Memorandum, and the other issued to
Governor Tanco to abide by the decision of the 0MB in the dismissal of his
son Vladimir from office.
Fmiher, the 0MB subsequently confinned that the action taken by the
DILG was correct through a Letter9 dated November 16, 2015 by Atty. M.A.
Christian 0. Uy of the 0MB, advising the DILG that the re-election of
Governor Tanco operated "as a condonation of his misconduct to the extent
of cutting off the right to remove him from office," pursuant to Aguinaldo v.
Hon. Santos. 10 Afterwards, Usec. Panadero issued a Memorandum" dated
December 11, 2015 directed to the respondent stating that because of the
Aguinaldo doctrine and the advice from the 0MB, the decision of dismissal
meted on Governor Tanco can no longer be implemented. Accordingly the
respondent filed his Compliance Report 12 on the Implementation of the
Decision of the 0MB dated June 1, 2015.
Verily, for Atty. Nuyda, he was just following orders from his superior
and the subsequent confirmation by the 0MB that the action taken by the
DILG was correct only show that he did not violate any law or rule more so
the CPR.
On December 6, 2016, the case was set for mandatory conference

wherein only the counsel of Atty. Nuyda was present. The mandatory
conference was reset on January 9, 2016 to give an opp01iunity for the
complainant to appear. However, at the said mandatory conference, the
complainant once again failed to appear. Meanwhile, Atty. Nuyda, together
his counsel, was present. This prompted the Investigating Commissioner to
terminate the mandatory conference and order the parties to submit their
respective position papers, attaching thereto their supp01iing documents and
the affidavits of their witnesses.
Atty. Nuyda filed his Position Paper 13 on February 6, 2017, while the
complainant did not. After reviewing the records of the case, the IBP-CBD
decided not to conduct any fmiher clarificatory hearing and considered the
matter submitted for report and recommendation.
Id. at 38-40.
9
Id. at 45.
10
287 Phil. 851, 858 (1992).
II
Rollo, pp. 43-44.
12
Id. at 47.
13
Id. at 82-94.
Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties in

their respective pleadings, the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and
Recommendation 14 dated July 28, 2017, dismissing the complaint of
Macaventa for lack of merit. Thus, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found
that there was no gross neglect of duty on the part of Atty. Nuyda. This ruling
is based on the fact that Atty. Nuyda simply followed the directive to given to
him by his superior at the DILG and there was never any intentional or willful
disobedience to the Decision of the 0MB, as the latter eventually confirmed
that its order dismissing Governor Tanco from the service can no longer be
implemented.
In a Resolution 15 dated October 4, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors

(IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt the aforesaid Report and Recommendation
dismissing the complaint.
On December 17, 2019, the IBP-CBD transmitted to the Court the

Notices of Resolution and records of the case for appropriate action.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be

held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Our Ruling
The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a

finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence. 16 In the present case, there is
no sufficient, clear and convincing evidence to hold Atty. Nuyda
administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty.
14
Id. at 162-1 65.
15
Id. at 160.
16
Cabasv. Atty. S11susco, eta!., 787 Ph il. 167, 174(2016).
Decision -5- AC. No. 11087
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence

characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as
other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. It
denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform
a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a
breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 17
As noted by the IBP, Atty. Nuyda simply followed the directive given
to him by his superior at the DILG to await fmiher advice on the dismissal of
Governor Tanco. In addition, there was never any intentional or willful
disobedience to the decision of the 0MB, as the latter, in fact, eventually
confirmed that its order dismissing Governor Tanco from service can no
longer be implemented. Thus, there is no gross neglect of duty on the paii of
Atty. Nuyda.
In order to be guilty of gross neglect of duty, it must be shown that

respondent manifested flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to
perform a duty. 18 However, in the instant case, there is no evidence to show
that respondent did not exercise the slightest care or indifference to the
consequences or any flagrant and palpable breach of duty. In fact, Atty. Nuyda
followed to the letter directives given to him by higher authorities.
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always

rests on the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if
the complainant establishes the complaint by clear preponderant' evidence that
warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the
legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until
the contrary is proved. An attorney is fu1iher presumed as an officer of the
Comi to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 19
In the present case, the herein complainant was clearly misguided and
did not even present a valid argument. Even without the presumption that an
attorney as an officer of the Comi have performed his duties in accordance
with his oath, it is plain and logical that the respondent only followed the
protocol in implementing the subject Decision of the 0MB. The said protocol
is pursuant to the standing arrangement between the DILG and the 0MB
where officials of the DILG were advised to seek prior clarification with the
0MB should there be issues that arise on the implementation of the latter's
17
18
19
Id. at 173- 174.
Id. at 174.
Lanuza v . Atly. Magsalin fl/, et al., 749 Phil. 104, 112 (20 14).
tlf
., ' . ..
decisions. Thus, his actions were done within the authority granted to him
and the laws.
While the Court will not avoid its responsibility in meting out the
proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn
duties, the Court will not wield its axe against those the accusations against
whom are not indubitably proven.20 Much less, in this case where the
accusations are obviously baseless.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart

from the resolution of the IBP-BOG to dismiss the complaint against Atty.
Nuyda.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Board of

Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, adopting the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and DISMISSES the
charge against Atty. Anthony Nuyda for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
.PERALTA
WE CONCUR:
AMY
20
Id. at 113.

Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila

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

Upreme Ourt: L/epnlllic of Tbe I Bilippineg Fflnnila

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

l\epnlllic of tbe i~bilippineg

PASTOR ABARACOSO A.C. No. 11087

PERALTA, CJ, Chairperson,

ATTORNEY ANTHONY C. Promulgated:

Before us is an Administrative Complaint 1 filed by Pastor Abaracoso

The facts are as follows.

On December 14, 2015, Macaventa filed the present Administrative

In its official website, the DILG justified the delay of the

as to the applicability of the Aguinaldo doctrine in relation to the decision of

In addition, Usec. Panadero issued a Memorandum6 dated October 22,

On December 6, 2016, the case was set for mandatory conference

Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties in

In a Resolution 15 dated October 4, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors

On December 17, 2019, the IBP-CBD transmitted to the Court the

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be

The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP.

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence

In order to be guilty of gross neglect of duty, it must be shown that

The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Board of

You might also like