1. ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D.

ARTUZ,
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA IIVS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
BRANCH 5, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO

FACTS: There are two (2) administrative cases for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ofelia M. D.
Artuz namely:
 A.C. No. 7253- Sometime in 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment against the
respondent for violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for Grave
Misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, docketed. He claimed that on July 28,
2005, he filed a Request for Inhibition and Re-Raffle of his client's case before the City
Prosecutor's Office on the ground that he and the respondent, then a Prosecutor, are not in
good terms as they are adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases. In her
comment to his request, however, she willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned
him and his father, who is not a party to the case. Further, Atty. Nava II alleged that the
respondent, (1) falsely and maliciously imputed a crime against him; (2) maliciously filed
criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department of Justice (DOJ),
intended clearly to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate them; and (3) maligned her former
superior and colleague, City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldago.
Notwithstanding, Artuz was appointed on September 28, 2006 and took her Oath of Office as
Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch 5, Iloilo City on October 9, 2006. Thus, the record of the
disbarment case was retrieved from the DOJ and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator
for appropriate Action.
 A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717- In the petition nullification of the nomination and appointment of
Artuz as Presiding Judge of MTCC, Br. 5 filed on October 17, 2006 (nullification case), Nava
alleged that Artuz is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as a trial judge as she faces
"several criminal and administrative cases”, the nature of which involves her character,
competence, probity, integrity, and independence which should not have been disregarded in
her application to the judiciary.
Nava reiterated that during her incumbency as a public prosecutor, the respondent received
numerous judicial fines and admonitions for tardiness, absences without prior notice, and lack
of interest to prosecute cases. In fact, some of the cases she handled were dismissed due to
her dismal performance. Further, Nava narrated specific incidents showing the respondent’s
character as vindictive, oppressive, and discourteous.

ISSUE:  WHETHER or not the respondent should be disbarred because of the cases filed against her.

HELD:Yes. GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official documents.

No. Court required Artuz to file her comment before it takes action on this disbarment case.

RULING:
OCA Ruling: In A.M. MTJ-08-1717, the OCA recommended that Artuz be found guilty of
Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public Documents, and accordingly be dismissed
from service effective immediately.
SC RULING: In her defense, the respondent simply contended that there was no intention to
malign, insult, or falsely accuse Atty. Nava II or anyone else as she simply wanted to defend her
impartiality. She also denied all the other charges against her.

The Court finds the respondent's contentions untenable.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of
the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.26 Any violation of these
standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

All told, the Court finds that the respondent had violated several canons of professional and ethical
conduct expected from her as a lawyer and an officer of the court. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of
the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty
of the Court to withdraw the same.
The Court finds respondent Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz (respondent) GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's
Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Accordingly, she is
DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys
effective immediately.