TOMAS BATNAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. OCTAVIO M. BANTA, RESPONDENT.

Complainant filed with this Court on 8 July 1987 a sworn complaint charging respondent with having
violated his lawyer’s oath, specifically the portion which states:  “I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit.”

Respondent, as an Assistant City Fiscal of Baguio
City, had filed three (3) criminal cases for libel against complainant in the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio.  These informations
for libel were filed by respondent after a preliminary investigation had been
conducted by Acting Third Assistant City Fiscal Pastor B. de Guzman, Jr. where
probable cause was found.  The
complainant was there charged with having made libelous statements against
Atty. Alfredo Lamen in several letters sent by
complainant to the Supreme Court, with copies to the Office of the Solicitor
General and other persons, in connection with disbarment proceedings filed by
complainant against Atty. Lamen pending before the
Supreme Court.

Complainant claims that the libel suits brought against him were
groundless, arguing that the Investigating Fiscal (Assistant City Fiscal Pastor
de Guzman, Jr.) should have dismissed the complaints for libel by Atty. Alfredo
G. Lamen. 
Petitioner attached to his complaint in this administrative case a copy
of a Resolution, dated 29 August 1986,
by the Provincial Fiscal, San Fernando,
La Union, holding that a prima facie case existed against Atty.
Alfredo Lamen for perjury.  The complaint for perjury against Atty. Lamen had been brought by complainant himself.

The Court required respondent to file an answer to the
complaint.  In his Answer dated 24 September 1987, respondent notes
that he had not been the Investigating Fiscal who had conducted the
preliminary investigation of the complaint for libel brought by Atty. Lamen against complainant. 
Respondent had been transferred to the Branch of the Regional Trial
Court where the libel cases were already pending, as a consequence of
reorganization and reassignment of prosecution officers under BP Blg. 129.  Respondent
also urges that the circumstance that the perjury case had been filed by
complainant against Atty. Lamen and is presently
pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Baguio, is not adequate
basis for dismissal of the libel cases against complainant.  Respondent submits that both the libel and
perjury cases should be left to the courts for final determination.  Respondent also notes that complainant had
indicated in writing that he would withdraw the disbarment case against
respondent provided that the libel cases against complainant were dismissed.  In a letter dated 13 July 1987 addressed to respondent, complainant
wrote:

“I have the honor to furnish you xerox
copies of my disbarment complainst against you and
Atty. Alfredo G. Lamen for your information.  Should you cause the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF BAGUIO AND BENGUET [to] dismiss the Criminal Cases Nos. 2055, 2056 and 2058
for Libel against me, I will withdraw my disbarment complaint against you.

I am also furnishing you copies of my letter to Honorable Judge
Rodolfo D. Rodrigo and my MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS OR DISMISS.”
(Answer, dated 24 September 1987, Annex “4”; emphasis supplied)

In his Reply dated 7
October 1987 to the respondent’s Answer, complainant contends that
the libel charges against him are a deliberate falsehood,
the Affidavit executed by Atty. Alfredo G. Lamen to
substantiate the latter’s complaint for libel having been found by the
Provincial Fiscal to have been perjured. 
Complainant also contends that the proceedings in the libel case should
be suspended pending final resolution of the perjury case brought by
complainant against Atty. Lamen.

The Court considers that this complaint for disbarment is clearly
bereft of merit.  As respondent has
pointed out, the respondent was not the Investigating Fiscal who had found a prima
facie case for libel against complainant.  But even if respondent had been the
Investigating Fiscal, a resolution of another Investigating Fiscal issued in
the perjury case brought by complainant against Atty Lamen, that Atty. Lamen’s
Affidavit imputing libel to complainant had been perjured, is no adequate basis
for holding that respondent had violated his lawyer’s oath by deliberately
filing a groundless suit.  Complainant
has not made a prima facie case against respondent for
deliberately and maliciously commencing a groundless suit against complainant.  It appears, on the contrary, that respondent,
in prosecuting the libel cases against complainant, was merely carrying out his
duties as a public officer; there is no showing that respondent acted
maliciously, that he prosecuted a case knowing that it was a groundless suit.

That the libel cases which, so far as the records of this
administrative case are concerned, remain pending in court, are groundless, simply cannot be proved by the resolution of the Provincial
Fiscal in the perjury case.  In his
resolution in the perjury case, the Provincial Fiscal took the position that
the statement made in Atty. Lamen’s Affidavit that
the complainant’s three (3) letters were “wildly published” was
incorrect or untrue.  The Provincial
Fiscal held that the complainant’s three (3) letters, alleged to contain
libelous statements, which had been furnished to the Solicitor in the Office of
the Solicitor General in-charge of the investigation of complainant’s
disbarment case against Atty. Lamen, and to the
Supreme Court itself, could not be regarded as having been “wildly
published”.  It is obvious that this
point made by the Provincial Fiscal does not relate to whether or not the
statements imputed to petitioner and set forth in his three (3) letters were,
in fact, defamatory and libelous and whether or not the allegedly libelous
statements fell within the scope of a privileged communication.  The Provincial Fiscal’s
resolution, in other words, could be correct and the libel cases against
complainant not groundless, at one and the same time.

It appears, finally, that complainant may have commenced this
disbarment charge against the respondent Assistant City Fiscal in the
expectation that complainant would thereby acquire some leverage in the libel
cases being prosecuted by the respondent. 
At least, this is an inference which reasonably arises from
complainant’s letter dated 13 July
1987, quoted above, an inference which complainant has not
successfully dispelled.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the complaint
for disbarment against respondent for lack of merit.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.