Administrative Case No. 540. September 15, 1967
PEDRO C. RELATIVO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIANO DE LEON, REGINALDO MASALONGA, LUIS B. UVERO AND PEDRO S. TANDOC, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
City Attorney Luis B. Uvero of Naga and Special Prosecutor Pedro
S. Tandoc filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on June 27,
1962, Criminal Case No. 7749, for falsification of public and/or official
documents, against Atty. Pedro C. Relativo and Alberto Buela, a personnel in
Relativo’s law office. Said, documents,
consisting of a purported Spanish possessory information title and a deed of
sale dated 1923, were among those seized on July 21, 1960 by virtue of a search
warrant during a raid by National Bureau of Investigation agents on the law office of Atty.
Relativo. NBI regional director Mariano
de Leon and agent Reynaldo Masalonga conducted said raid and seizure
operations.
Relativo, alleging that the documents seized are genuine and
that, consequently, the seizure and prosecution for falsification of said
documents are a breach of legal ethics, filed in this Court on September 10,
1962 a petition for disbarment against City Attorney Luis B. Uvero, Special
Prosecutor Pedro S. Tandoc, NBI regional director Mariano de Leon and NBI agent
Reynaldo Masalonga.
Subsequently, on October 11 and 15, 1962, respondents answered
the petition for disbarment, alleging that they acted in performance of their
duties and that the documents in question were fake and connected with the
land title racket unearthed by the NBI.
Petitioner, on the other hand, on October 13 and 14, 1962, caused
to be published in the newspapers “Bicol Star” and the “Bicol
Mail” statements regarding the filing and pendency of said disbarment
proceedings in the Supreme Court
against herein respondents, including the assertion that in fact said documents
were not falsified and that, on the contrary, the criminal case against him was
fabricated (See clippings, Annexes “A” and “B” to
respondent Uvero’s petition for contempt).
For this act of publication, respondents Tandoc and Uvero filed
separate petitions for contempt against Relativo. That of Tandoc was dismissed. That of Uvero, however, was given due
course, the same not being barred by the dismissal of the other petition, since
the movants are different persons. After
Relativo answered it, We referred the incident to this Court’s
Legal-Officer-Investigator, for investigation.
The Investigator, after hearing the parties thereon, submitted
his report finding that the act of publication charged in the petition for contempt,
was in fact done by Relativo, as was admitted by him during the investigation,
and recommending that Relativo be found guilty of contempt for violating Section
10 of Rule 128 (now Rule 139), Rules of Court, and that he be ordered to pay
two hundred (P200.00) pesos to be turned over to the office of the Clerk of
this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Court’s order to pay.
Since the resolution of
the issue in the petition for disbarment hinged on whether the documents seized
were in fact genuine or falsified, We ordered on October 17, 1962 that the main
case be stayed until the decision is rendered by the Court of First Instance in
Criminal Case 7749, requiring the parties to inform the Court of said decision.
Petitioner Relativo, on August 15, 1967, pursuant to the
afore-stated order, informed this Court that Criminal Case No. 7749 was dismissed on July 19, 1965,
not on the merits but without trial, for failure of the prosecution to present
witnesses; but that that the same Court of First Instance, in a related case,
Criminal Case No. 8071, People vs. Antonio Añonuevo, involving the same
documents, rendered a decision finding that said documents were indeed
falsified, although acquitting the accused therein, for lack of participation
in the offense, declining to comment on the question of whether the law office
of Atty. Relativo and its personnel had a hand therein, since they were not
defendants therein. Said decision
lauded the action of the National Bureau of Investigation, finding the raid on
Atty. Relativo’s office to have been prompted by “highly reasonable
suspicion” and commending the NBI’s “praiseworthy zeal and devotion to duty” in the
circumstances.
Such being the case, it
clearly follows that the seizure of the documents, now found to be falsified
documents, from the law office of Atty. Relativo, and the prosecution of
Relativo and Buela for falsification thereof, cannot be deemed unethical; it was an act of performance of duty, unattended by bad faith, and, instead,
properly commendable. The main petition
should now therefore be dismissed.
As to the petition for
contempt, Atty. Relativo having admittedly caused premature disclosure
by publication of the filing and pendency of the disbarment proceedings
therein, in clear violation of Section 10, Rule 128 (now 139), Ruled of Court, stating that:
“SEC. 10. Confidential. – Proceedings against attorneys shall
be private and confidential except that
the final order of the court shall be made public as in other cases
coming before the court.”
said Atty. Relativo is found guilty of
contempt of this Court, and ordered
to pay a fine of P50.00, within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition for disbarment is hereby
dismissed. Petitioner Relativo is hereby
found guilty of contempt of Court, on the motion of respondent Uvero,
and ordered to pay to this Court, thru its Clerk, the sum of fifty (P50.00)
pesos, within thirty (30) days
from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.