JOSE MISAMIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTORNEY MIGUEL A. SAN JUAN, RESPONDENT.

Misamin versus San Juan

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by Jose Misamin against Attorney Miguel A. San Juan, a member of the bar who at the time also held the rank of captain in the Metro Manila police force. The complainant charged that the respondent acted as legal representative of certain establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, worse, that he coerced the complainant, an employee, into agreeing to drop the charges he had filed against his employer for violation of the Minimum Wage Law. The case matters because it is the Court's occasion to restate the exacting standard of proof in disbarment proceedings, and to remind lawyers in public office that avoiding the appearance of impropriety is itself part of professional duty.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the Office of the Solicitor-General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor-General set the case for investigation on several dates, but counsel for the complainant failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, and the complainant himself eventually asked to withdraw the complaint. The Solicitor-General accordingly recommended dismissal of the complaint. The case then came back to the Supreme Court, which resolved it as an original administrative matter.

Facts

Jose Misamin filed charges against his employer, Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's Bakery, for violation of the Minimum Wage Law. He later filed an administrative complaint against Attorney Miguel A. San Juan, alleging that the respondent, while serving as a captain in the Metro Manila police force, acted as counsel for establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent, and that he coerced the complainant into dropping his labor charges.

The respondent denied the charges. He admitted having appeared as counsel for New Cesar's Bakery in the proceeding before the National Labor Relations Commission while he held office as a police captain, but contended that the law did not prohibit such isolated exercise of his profession, and that his appearance while holding a government position is not among the grounds for suspension or removal of attorneys under the Rules of Court. He also denied conspiring with the complainant's lawyer to trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had received his separation pay, and denied giving illegal protection to members of the Chinese community in Santa Cruz, Manila.

When the investigation proceeded, the complainant's counsel failed to appear on three scheduled dates without filing any written motion for postponement. On the last date, the complainant, who was present, declared that he wished to withdraw his complaint, explaining that he had acted in an outburst of anger, and that upon reexamining his case he believed the respondent to be without fault.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent may be held guilty of malpractice for having appeared as counsel for New Cesar's Bakery before the National Labor Relations Commission while he was an incumbent police captain.
• Whether or not the respondent conspired with the complainant's counsel to mislead the complainant into admitting that he had received his separation pay.
• Whether or not the respondent gave illegal protection to aliens.

Applicable Provisions

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as referred to in the Report of the Solicitor-General, provides the grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney:

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney.

The Solicitor-General relied on this provision in concluding that the respondent's practice of his profession while a police official is not embraced among the grounds for suspension or removal, and that the matter should instead be referred to the National Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice. The law is exacting in requiring competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice, and here the complainant's own counsel failed to appear at the hearings, and the complainant himself asked to withdraw the complaint. The respondent's appearance as counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds for suspension or removal of attorneys, and the Court expressly left any violation of the Civil Service Law to the administrative proceeding noted in the Solicitor-General's recommendation.

On the second and third issues, the Court found the recommendation of dismissal for lack of evidence to be understandable and in accordance with settled law. The Court restated the authoritative doctrine laid down as far back as 1922 in the matter of Tionko:

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.

Even while dismissing the charges, the Court did not pass unnoticed the suspicion that the respondent made use, not so much of his legal knowledge, but of the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in his office, and it admonished him to avoid all appearances of impropriety in his future actuations as a member of the bar.

Doctrine

Disbarment or suspension is a serious consequence that follows only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent attorney. 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. The practice of a profession by a public officer, where not among the grounds for suspension or removal under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, is a matter for the proper administrative bodies, not a ground for disbarment. A lawyer, and especially one holding public office, must avoid all appearances of impropriety, for public office is a public trust.

Disposition

The administrative complaint against Attorney Miguel A. San Juan was dismissed for not having been duly proved, with a copy of the resolution spread on his record.

Remember This

Memorize the Tionko doctrine: disbarment or suspension follows only upon a clear preponderance of evidence, the attorney being presumed innocent of the charges and faithful to his oath. Examiners use this case for the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings and for the ethical duty of lawyers in public office to avoid the appearance of impropriety.