IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 26, 2024 OF THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION, THIS COURT, IN A.C. NO. 12472, VS. ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, RESPONDENT.

Alberto versus Miel

The Case

This is a disciplinary proceeding that began as a disbarment complaint by one lawyer against another and ended with the complainant himself disbarred. Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto charged Atty. Chad Rodolfo M. Miel with violating the Corporation Code, but he built that charge on criminal complaints that had already been dismissed and concealed the dismissals from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The case matters because it shows the Court turning the disciplinary machinery against the very lawyer who abused it, and because it applies the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to conduct that occurred under the old Code.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. In its Report and Recommendation dated June 29, 2017, the Commission recommended dismissal of the charges against Atty. Miel and suspension of Atty. Alberto for six months. The Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated May 19, 2018, adopted the dismissal of Atty. Miel but set aside the penalty against Atty. Alberto and referred the charge against him back to the Commission to afford him due process.

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 7, 2019, adopted and approved the findings and recommendation, dismissed the complaint against Atty. Miel, set aside the recommended suspension of Atty. Alberto, and referred the charge against him to the Commission for investigation. On remand, the Commission issued its Report and Recommendation dated April 15, 2022, recommending indefinite suspension, and the Board of Governors approved it on September 1, 2022, adding a fine of 5,000 pesos for each of two acts of disobedience, or 10,000 pesos in all. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

On June 10, 2016, Atty. Alberto filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Miel, charging him with violation of Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation Code. As part of the basis of that complaint, he cited two criminal complaints against Atty. Miel. What he did not disclose was that the City Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City had already issued two resolutions finding that Atty. Miel did not violate those provisions, and that the criminal complaints had long been dismissed.

The Commission found that Atty. Alberto deliberately concealed the dismissals and misled it, describing him as grievously less than candid in his narration of facts and as having vainly and intentionally hidden the dismissals. It also found him guilty of forum shopping, having resorted to a disbarment complaint after not getting his way at the prosecutor's office.

When the case was remanded to the Commission, Atty. Alberto took no part. He did not file a pre-conference brief. When the pandemic forced the proceedings online, he did not respond to the order to submit his contact details or to waive the conference. He did not file a position paper despite a non-extendible period of ten days. Only Atty. Miel complied at every stage.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Alberto is guilty of serious dishonesty for concealing the dismissed criminal complaints and misleading the Commission on Bar Discipline.
• Whether or not Atty. Alberto is guilty of violating his duty of fidelity for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
• Whether or not the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability may be applied to conduct that occurred while the old Code of Professional Responsibility was in force.
• Whether or not the penalty of disbarment, rather than suspension, is warranted under the circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Canon II, Section 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

This is the core prohibition that Atty. Alberto's concealment of the dismissals violated.

Canon II, Section 8 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not misquote, misrepresent, or mislead the court as to the existence or the contents of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or pass off as one's own the ideas or words of another, or assert as a fact that which has not been proven.

This provision reaches the act of citing dismissed complaints as if they were live charges.

Canon II, Section 11 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not make false representations or statements. A lawyer shall be liable for any material damage caused by such false representations or statements.

This fixes liability for the false statements Atty. Alberto made before the Commission.

Canon III, Section 2 of the same Code provides:

As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This is the duty of fidelity that his repeated non-compliance with lawful directives breached.

Canon III, Section 7 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not abuse court processes.

This covers his resort to a disbarment complaint after failing before the prosecutor's office.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence, and that substantial evidence existed that Atty. Alberto misled the Commission into believing that two criminal complaints were still existing when he knew they had been dismissed with finality. It found him guilty of serious dishonesty under Canon II, Sections 1, 8, and 11, because his conduct showed moral depravity in lying and deceiving in order to cause the disbarment of Atty. Miel.

On the second issue, the Court held that his failure to submit his pre-conference brief, his position paper, and his compliance with the directives of the Commission constituted willful disobedience directed not only against the Commission but against the Court itself, in violation of Canon III, Sections 2 and 7.

On the third issue, the Court held that although the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability took effect only on May 29, 2023, its provisions apply to pending and future cases, except where retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. Since the acts punishable under the old Code are likewise punishable under the new one, its application here was not unduly prejudicial to Atty. Alberto.

On the fourth issue, the Court found the aggravating circumstances of previous administrative liability, lack of remorse, and failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It noted that Atty. Alberto had twice been suspended before, for five years and for two years, and had been sternly warned that a similar violation would merit a more severe penalty. Disbarment, no less, was warranted.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes candor and honesty not only to courts but to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its investigating bodies, which draw their authority from the Supreme Court. Concealing the dismissal of criminal complaints and citing them as live charges is serious dishonesty, punishable under Canon II, Sections 1, 8, and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Willful disobedience of the orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is a violation of the duty of fidelity under Canon III, Sections 2 and 7. The new Code applies to pending cases where the acts complained of are punishable under both the old and the new Codes. And where aggravating circumstances attend without any mitigating circumstance, the Court may impose disbarment depending on their number and gravity.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Alberto guilty of violating Canon II, Sections 1, 8, and 11, and Canon III, Sections 2 and 7, disbarred him from the practice of law, and ordered his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a lawyer who deceives the disciplinary body and defies its orders forfeits the privilege of practice. Examiners use this case for the quantum of substantial evidence in disbarment, for retroactive application of the new Code, and for the escalation from suspension to disbarment on aggravating circumstances.