MYRNA D. ROQUE AND ROBERTO P. CRUZADO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO, RESPONDENT.

In a verified complaint filed 17 February 1988 by Myrna D. Roque
and Roberto P. Cruzado, Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio was charged with gross
misconduct and oppression. Eventually,
the complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report and recommendation.

Briefly, complainants charge that –

1. Respondent, a Legal
Officer of the Commission on Audit appointed to investigate the charges filed
by complainant Myrna D. Roque against a COA official Jovencio Panelo, displayed
bias and partiality amounting to abuse of discretion: (a) respondent was “drinking and eating and
making merry with the lawyer of Panelo at Balay Kaldingan, a restaurant cum
beerhouse”;^[1] (b) respondent sat on the case filed
by complainant against Panelo for almost a year;^[2] (c)
respondent conspired with Atty. Rogelio Tablang, then Division Chief of the COA
Legal Office, to whom the case was assigned after respondent was relieved upon
motion of complainant; and, (d) respondent
drafted the decision in the case against Panelo even after the former was
relieved of his assignment as “investigator” in the case.^[3]

2. Respondent is guilty of oppression for having summoned
complainant Roberto P. Crusado to the Office of the Chief, Security Affairs
Service Unit, COA, and threatened him.

In his answer, respondent denies the allegations of the
complainants and avers that the complaint was filed “purely out of malice
and with an evil design to harass respondent.”^[4]

After hearing, the IBP rendered
a decision^[5]
on 28 November 1991, dismissing the complaint against Atty. Feliciano B.
Clemencio for lack of merit, ruling that (a) respondent could not have been
guilty of abuse of discretion as he was not vested with such discretion in the
first place;^[6]
(b) intimacy or friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of one of
the parties to a suit is not ground for disqualification, and that in the case
at bar, respondent was not even a judge clothed with any discretionary power;^[7]
(c) respondent cannot be validly blamed for the supposed “inaction”
as he was already relieved from
acting on the Panelo case effective 14 May 1987 and the records show that he
was no longer Legal Officer as early as
1 March 1987;^[8]
(d) there is no proof, that respondent conspired with Atty. Rogelio Tablang and
in fact, complainants never filed a case against the latter;^[9]
(e) the draft decision was written by the respondent, as directed by his
superiors at the COA Legal Office, who reviewed the same, and a “draft“ decision is nothing but a scrap
of paper until the same is finalized and signed by the persons vested by law to
sign the same;^[10] and, (f) respondent could not be
guilty of oppression since complainant Cruzado was “invited” by the
Chief of the Security Affairs Service Unit himself in the latter’s official
capacity and was not summoned by the respondent, and although respondent was
present and admitted informing complainant Cruzado the expenses the latter may
incur in the event a case was filed against him (Cruzado), “a threat to
prosecute is not considered an intimidation.”^[11]

We differ from the
findings and recommendation of the IBP. Although there may not be sufficient evidence to prove that respondent
Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio acted with abuse of discretion resulting in gross
misconduct. We believe nevertheless that he displayed ethical infractions.

Undisputedly, as specified in COA Office Order No. 86-9877,^[12]
respondent was tasked to conduct the formal investigation in Adm. Case No.
86-884 filed by complainant Roque against Panelo, and thereafter to submit his
findings and recommendation. What facts
to include or exclude in his report, his findings and how to support them, as
well as his recommendation – all these necessarily entail the exercise of sound
discretion and impartial judgment.

Admittedly, it was respondent himself who drafted the decision in
the case, which draft became the basis for the final adjudication adopted by
the COA. Indeed, the manner of
presenting the facts and the consequent recommendation can influence the
reviewing authority. In fact, a perusal
of both the draft decision submitted by respondent^[13]
and the decision finally adopted by the COA^[14]
would reveal that, except for the difference in the penalties imposed, the
final decision had all the earmarks of the preliminary draft. Thus, respondent should have refrained from
drinking and dining with Panelo’s counsel. It is a rule of general
application that an attorney (much more an investigator, as in the case of
respondent) should avoid, if not altogether
eliminate, even the slightest appearances of impropriety.

Moreover, we find it difficult to believe that the reason why
complainant Cruzado was “invited” to report to the Security Affairs
Service Unit was precisely to protect his rights, as claimed by
respondent. When a lowly employee is
summoned to appear before the Chief Security Officer and there questioned by a
lawyer who is his superior, and who happens in this case to be respondent
himself, and warned of dismissal from employment, a possible litigation and its
dire consequences, that employee
is, in effect, under threat or intimidation.

The excuse of respondent that a threat to prosecute is no
intimidation deserves scant consideration. The instant complaint involves the fitness of a lawyer to continue his
membership with the Philippine Bar, where he is expected to promote respect for
law and legal processes. For sure, We are not here concerned with
intimidation as a requisite to vitiate consent in entering into contracts, as
cited by respondent to support his argument. Here, We take into serious account the fact that respondent is a lawyer,
a superior who threatened a subordinate complainant with dismissal and a court
suit. A man of the law should never use
his legal expertise and influence in order to frighten or coerce anyone,
specially the ordinary man who looks up to him for justice.

Thus, We remind respondent Atty. Feliciano B. Clemencio of his
duties and responsibilities as a lawyer. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. A member of the Bar must act with integrity,
honesty and professional decorum. He
must comport himself in a manner which will secure and preserve the respect and
confidence of the public. Both his
professional and personal conduct must he kept beyond reproach and above
suspicion. He is required not only in
fact to be of good moral character, but must also be seen to be leading a life
in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. His
deportment should be characterized by candor, competence and fairness. One of his duties is to maintain the high
ethical standards of the legal profession. Accordingly, respondent must be censured for his failure to comply with
the ethical standards required of members of the Bar as officers of the Court.

WHEREFORE, respondent, ATTY. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO, is
hereby CENSURED for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar conduct will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution
be FURNISHED the Bar
Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread in the personal
records of respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman),
Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Complaint, par. 10, p. 2.

^[2]
Reply, p. 3.

^[3]
Ibid., par. 7, pp. 5-6.

^[4]
Comment, pp. 13-15.

^[5]
Signed by Numeriano G. Tanopo,
Jr., President (Chairman); Ernesto S. Salunat, Governor, Northern Luzon; Jose Aguila
GrapiIon, Governor, Southern Luzon Region; Baldomero C. Estenzo, Governor,
Eastern Visayas Region; Teodoro D. Nano, Jr., Governor, Eastern Mindanao
Region; and Didagen P. Dilangalen, Governor, Western Mindanao Region.

^[6]
Decision, IBP, pp. 11-12.

^[7]
Ibid, p. 13.

^[8]
Ibid., p. 15.

^[9]
Ibid., p. 14.

^[10]
Ibid., p. 12.

^[11]
Ibid., p. 17.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 35.

^[13]
Annex 11.

^[14]
Annex 12.