BONIFACIO GARCIA, LORENZO AGUSTIN, CLEMENTE AGACETE AND PEDRO SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA, RESPONDENT.

Garcia versus Milla

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or suspension brought by Bonifacio Garcia, Lorenzo Agustin, Clemente Agacete and Pedro Santiago against Attorney Abelardo Milla, then Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac. The complainants alleged that the respondent used his public office not for peace but as an instrument of revenge, hatred and coercion in a land dispute, and they asked the Supreme Court to strip him of his license or suspend him from practice. The case matters because it shows the Court weighing the conduct of a public prosecutor against the standard of professional duty, and because it teaches that administrative charges against a lawyer must rest on clear proof, not on the suspicions of an embittered litigant.

Procedural History

The complainants filed their verified complaint directly with the Supreme Court, an original administrative action against a member of the Bar. The respondent answered, denying the principal allegations. The Court referred the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate action, and that department caused an investigation to be conducted by a Senior State Prosecutor, who gave due notice and hearing to the parties. The investigator submitted a report finding the facts against the complainants and recommending dismissal of the charges. The Supreme Court then resolved the case on the basis of that report and the record.

Facts

The dispute began in the nineteen forties, when Cosme Valdez brought a civil case over a parcel of land in Doclong, San Clemente, Tarlac, covered by a transfer certificate of title in his name. The complainants and their witnesses occupied or tended portions of the land, but held no better title than tax declarations, and none of them presented those declarations during the investigation. In the palay season of nineteen sixty one to nineteen sixty two, three tenants, Alejandro Balneg, Francisco Bugarin and Rodolfo Olegario, turned their produce over to the heirs of Cosme Valdez and to Gaudencio Toledo, the respondent's father-in-law. The complainants, angered by this change of allegiance, looked for ways to recover the harvest.

On the fourteenth of February, nineteen sixty four, several complainants went to Camilo Molacruz in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, and offered him two thirds of any palay he could haul from the disputed area, provided he and his men were supplied with firearms. Molacruz agreed. On the seventeenth of February his men went to Doclong, met opposition from Bugarin and his group, and a shot was fired to scare them. Molacruz and two companions were taken to Camp Makabulos for investigation and released the next morning. On the nineteenth of February, the respondent, having heard that armed men from Urbiztondo were threatening the peace in Doclong, went to the area with a companion. There he spoke briefly with a Philippine Constabulary corporal, accosted two of Molacruz's men, warned them against making trouble, and told them to leave. They left.

The investigator found that the complainants had concocted their story to even up matters with the Valdez heirs, with Gaudencio Toledo and with the respondent. Their earliest affidavits did not place the respondent at the scene at all. Only affidavits executed days later, on the twenty third of February, involved him, and one affiant who did not incriminate him was carefully excluded from the investigation. The investigator concluded that the respondent's involvement was an afterthought, and that he had merely exercised his prerogatives as a public prosecutor in driving away hired men from the premises.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, as Assistant Provincial Fiscal, used his office as an instrument of revenge, hatred and coercion against the complainants, so as to warrant his disbarment or suspension.
• Whether or not the charges against the respondent are supported by sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action against him as a member of the Bar.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the sworn allegations of the complaint and on the findings of the investigator. The governing standard is the duty of a public prosecutor, which the investigator stated in these words:

It is the duty of a public prosecutor to protect indent and law-abiding citizens from undue harassments and to maintain the peace over and above their powers to prosecute.

That statement bears on the case because the respondent's act of driving away the hired men was precisely the performance of that duty, not an abuse of office.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no abuse of office. The investigator's findings, supported by the record, showed that the respondent went to Doclong because he had heard that armed men were threatening the peace, that he warned two of them and told them to leave, and that they left. The involvement attributed to him in the affidavits came as an afterthought, after he had exercised his prerogatives as an assistant provincial fiscal. His conduct therefore fell within the duty quoted above, the protection of law-abiding citizens and the maintenance of the peace.

On the second issue, the Court held that the charges were not supported by sufficient evidence. The complainants' own affidavits, executed on the twentieth and twenty second of February, did not place the respondent at the scene with a gun or at all; only the later affidavits did, and one affiant who did not incriminate him was excluded from the investigation. The investigator found that the complainants had concocted their story, and the Court, finding these findings and recommendations supported by the record, dismissed the petition.

Doctrine

First, a public prosecutor who acts to protect law-abiding citizens from harassment and to maintain the peace does not abuse his office; such acts are within his duty and cannot ground disbarment. Second, administrative charges against a lawyer must be established by clear and sufficient evidence; where the complainant's own affidavits contradict the charge and the investigator finds the story concocted, the petition must be dismissed. Third, the findings of the investigating officer, when supported by the record, are entitled to weight and may be adopted as the basis of the Court's resolution.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the respondent was exonerated of the charges.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that it is the duty of a public prosecutor to protect law-abiding citizens from undue harassment and to maintain the peace, over and above the power to prosecute. Examiners use this case to test the limits of a fiscal's duty and the quantum of proof required in disbarment proceedings.