A.C. No.

11069, June 08, 2016

RONALDO C. FACTURAN v.
PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L.
BARCELONA, JR.
 FACTS
Complainant filed a complaint for qualified theft against
Mendoza, et al. and the case was assigned for
preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan.
Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case,
together with his Resolution recommending the
prosecution of Mendoza, et al. and the corresponding
Information, to respondent (Prosecutor Barcelona).
Respondent did not approve or sign the resolution and,
instead, removed the case records from the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his residence.
Mendoza, et al., it appears were personally known to
respondent.
 FACTS
Complainant sought the intervention of the DOJ
Secretary, who endorsed the complainant's
concerns to State Prosecutor Pinote. State
Prosecutor Pinote could not take appropriate
action on the case because the case records
were still in the possession of respondent who
failed to turn them over despite the directive to
do so.
 FACTS
On July 20 2005, the complainant learned that
the case records had been turned over to the
Provincial Prosecution Office but without
Prosecutor Amerkhan's Resolution and
Information. The respondent did not approve or
act upon the same.
 FACTS
Complainant filed for disbarment. Respondent claimed that
the alleged malicious delaying or the perceived concealment
of the case records was neither intentional nor due to
favoritism, as in fact he inhibited himself from the case.
Respondent averred that the complainant knew he was
predisposed to disapprove the resolution prepared by
Prosecutor Amerkhan, as the controversy merely involved a
boundary dispute. He advised Prosecutor Amerkhan to
conduct a clarifactory hearing instead of prematurely
conlcuding the preliminary investigation, but Prosecutor
Amerkhan failed to so, thus the reason for the delay of the
case resolution. Furthermore, respondent averred that he was
no longer aware of any development in the case because he
subsequently detailed elsewhere.
 FACTS
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP
found respondent to have violated Canons 18 and
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period ranging from 6 months
to 2 years upon the discretion of the IBP Governing
Board. The Commission found that the respondent
removed the case records from the office, failed to
timely return the records, upon order of the State
Prosecutor Pinote, and failed to perform his duty of
approving or disapproving Prosecutor Amerkhan's
recommendation pertaining to the case.
 ISSUE
WON grounds exist to hold respondent
administratively liable.
 RULING
Court concurs with the IBP's factual findings and
recommendation to hold respondent administratively liable,
but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, but
instead, of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN

GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL
TASKS.
XXXX
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not sue his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
 RULING
In Ali v. Bubong, the Court recognized that
private interest is not limited to direct interest,
but extends to advancing the interest of
relatives.
 RULING
In this case, respondent’s accountability regarding I.S. No. 04-211 has been
duly established. When Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded to respondent the
case records, together with the resolution recommending the filing of the
appropriate information in court, respondent failed to take action thereon, as
records are bereft of evidence showing that he either approved or
disapproved it. As the IBP had correctly opined, if respondent did not concur
with the findings and recommendation of Prosecutor Amerkhan, who
conducted the preliminary investigation of the case, respondent should have
timely disapproved his recommendation to enable complainant to take the
appropriate remedy to challenge the disapproval. The Court notes the
respondent’s defense that complainant was already aware beforehand that he
(respondent) was inclined to disapprove the resolution prepared by
Prosecutor Amerkhan, whom he ordered to conduct a clarificatory hearing on
the case. However, if such was the case, then nothing could have prevented
respondent from proceeding to disapprove the resolution. Yet, as the records
bear out, he absolutely took no action thereon.
 RULING
Respondent removed the case records from the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor and, when directed to turn them over,
failed to do so notwithstanding his assignment to the DOJ in
Manila in February 2005. As a result, no further action had
been taken on the case in the meantime. In fact, as of June 30,
2005, respondent still had not complied with State Prosecutor
Pinote’s directive to return not only the case records, but all
the cases previously assigned to him as well. Needless to state,
respondent ought to have known that without the case
records, no further action could be taken on any of those
cases. His assignment to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005
should have even prompted him to turn over the case records
for appropriate action, but he still failed to do so, without any
plausible reason.
 RULING
Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the
handling the case and his failure to timely return the case
records thereof for further action it can only be inferred that
respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately
refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor. Such refusal,
under the circumstances, evidently worked to the advantage
of the respondents in the case - which included respondent's
cousin, Elezar - as the absence of the case records in the office
of the Provincial Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing of
the appropriate criminal information in court against them.
Hence, it is apparent that respondent used his public position
as a prosecutor to advance and protect the private interest of
his relative, which is clearly proscribed in the CPR.
 RULING
WHEREFORE, respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L.
Barcelona, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rule
6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 A.M. No. MTJ-09-1728
July 21, 2010
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1623-MTJ)

ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS vs.

JUDGE JULIA A. REYES, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 69, PASIG CITY
 FACTS
Complainant was the counsel for Oakridge in an eviction suit filed against the
latter by Atty. Alejandro. During the pendency of the suit, Oakridge padlocked
the leased premises, alleging that it was authorized to do so by the terms and
conditions of the Contract of Lease. Atty. Alejandro filed a writ of preliminary
injunction with prayer for a TRO to have the unit reopened. Respondent Judge
granted the TRO. On August 16, 2004, respondent Judge issued another Order
which orders Oakridge to explain why they should not be cited in contempt
for failure to comply with the TRO. The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
issued by the court on June 18, 2004 was an ultimatum on plaintiff to remove
the padlock within a period of twenty (20) days from date of said Order.
Certainly, the lapse of said 20-day period did not, in any way, change the order
of this court dated June 11, 2004 for plaintiff not to padlock the subject
premises. Less than 48 hours thereafter, and without waiting for the
explanations from Oakridge, respondent Judge rendered a Decision dated
August 17, 2004, which effectively disposed of the matter covered by the
show cause order, as well as the merits of the case itself, notwithstanding the
fact that there was still a pre-scheduled hearing on September 21, 2004 and
several motions pending action from respondent Judge.
 FACTS
Hence, the instant complaint alleging that respondent
Judge displayed gross ignorance of the law and manifest
partiality. Complainant alleged that respondent Judge
committed a flagrant violation of the rules when she
unduly extended the 20-day lifetime of a TRO. Likewise,
complainant maintained that respondent Judge
erroneously granted a relief which was not prayed for
and even awarded damages which were way beyond the
jurisdiction of a first-level court. Complainant thereafter
requested that an investigation be conducted and that
appropriate penalties be imposed on respondent Judge.
 FACTS
Respondent Judge claimed that since the subject
case had already been appealed by complainant
and Oakridge and that the entire records thereof
had already been elevated to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), the complainant should be directed
to furnish her a complete set of the records of
the case to enable her to comment intelligently
on the instant complaint.
 FACTS
Complainant then filed an Entry of Appearance and
Opposition to Manifestation and Motion dated
November 22, 2004, arguing that he cannot be
required to furnish respondent Judge with copies of
the entire records of the case since A.M. No.
01-8-10-SC10 does not require him to do so, and
that respondent Judge was already furnished by the
OCA with the complaint together with the necessary
documents and attachments thereto, through the
1st Indorsement of the OCA.
 FACTS
On January 24, 2005, the OCA received a
telegram dated January 21, 2005 from a certain
Atty. Carlos Z. Ambrosio, who requested, as
counsel for respondent Judge, for the
suspension of the proceedings in all the
administrative cases filed against respondent
Judge. Atty. Ambrosio further manifested
therein that a formal motion on the matter will
follow as soon as possible.
 FACTS
The Court issued a resolution which denied the
motion of Atty. Ambrosio for lack of merit and
ordering the respondent Judge to file her
answer or comment on the administrative
complaints within 15 days, without extension.
No comment was filed. The OCA deemed this
failure as a waiver of the right to present
evidence.
 FACTS
The OCA found respondent Judge guilty of
manifest bias, partiality, and grave abuse of
authority and recommended that she be
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, and
with prejudice to reemployment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned-and-controlled corporations
and government financial institutions.
 RULING
The Court concurs with the OCA’s findings, but
with some modification on the penalty imposed.
 RULING
Respondent Judge was required to comment on the instant complaint
through the 1st Indorsement dated October 13, 2004. However,
respondent Judge merely filed a Manifestation and Motion dated
November 12, 2004, wherein she requested for a copy of the entire
records of the case. Respondent Judge neither made any further
attempts nor exerted any effort to present her defense. She did not
even identify the pertinent documents which she claimed she needed
in order to “intelligently comment” on the charges against her.
Clearly, her alleged need for verification of the records was but a
flimsy excuse since all the pertinent documents were already
attached to the complaint which the OCA furnished her. Moreover,
respondent Judge knew fully well how and where to secure copies of
the rest of the records she needed relative to the case that she
decided as these were available upon request with the RTC, Pasig
City.
 RULING
The respondent judge’s failure to comply with the Court’s
directive to file her comment to the complaint against
her constitutes a blatant display of her disobedience to
the lawful directives of the Court. A resolution of the
Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary
should not be construed as a mere request from the
Court. Nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately or selectively. Respondents in
administrative complaints should comment on all
accusations or allegations against them because it is their
duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
 RULING
In the instant case, the respondent judge’s
continued failure to comply with the directive of
the Court underscores her lack of respect for
and defiance of authority. Respectful obedience
to the dictates of the law and justice is expected
of every judge. Willfully omitting to comply with
the Court’s directive already exposes the
respondent judge to administrative sanction.
 RULING
With regard to the charge of gross ignorance of
the law, we agree with the findings of the OCA
that the bases for this charge involve
contentious issues which could properly be
resolved through an appropriate appeal or other
judicial remedies and not through the instant
administrative action.
 RULING
The Court cannot conclude that respondent Judge was
guilty of such misapplication of elementary court rules
and procedure as to constitute gross ignorance of the
law. However, the same circumstances, taken together
and measured against the high ethical standards set for
members of the Judiciary, are clear indicators of manifest
bias and partiality as well as grave abuse of authority on
the part of respondent Judge. Indubitably, the unseemly
haste with which respondent Judge issued the August 17,
2004 Decision without waiting for complainant’s
explanation to her August 16, 2004 show-cause order
plainly prejudiced complainant and favored the other
party.
 RULING
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Julia A. Reyes of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig
City, Branch 69, is found guilty of manifest bias,
partiality and grave abuse of authority and
ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Forty
Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) to be deducted
from her accrued leave credits, if sufficient; if
not, then she should pay the said amount
directly to this Court.