In the case of GREGORY U. CHAN vs. NLRC COMMISSIONER ROMEO L. GO, et. al., A.C. No. 7547, September 4, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against NLRC Commissioner Romeo Go,, et. al., for lack of merit.
Let me digest the case for legal research purposes.
In a verified complaint dated June 5, 2007, complainant Gregory U. Chan prayed for the disbarment or imposition of proper disciplinary sanctions upon respondents Commissioner Romeo Go of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras for allegedly perpetrating acts unbecoming and degrading to the legal profession, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, and the Rules of Court.
Complainant alleged that respondents were influence peddlers who pride themselves in being able to direct the outcome of cases pending before the NLRC; that respondents belittled and denigrated the nobility of the legal profession by indicating that decisions of the NLRC were merely drafted by humble secretaries or clerks; and that respondents attempted to extort money from him.
The controversy stemmed from an illegal dismissal case filed by Susan Que Tiu against complainant and his companies. On July 18, 2003, the labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tiu and ordered her employers to pay backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, and 10% attorney’s fees. Pending resolution of their appeal before the NLRC, complainant alleged that respondents Go and Paras attempted to extort money from him in behalf of Tiu. As proof of these meetings, complainant attached receipts for the meals ordered at the above-mentioned establishments and affidavits of Jenny Chan, Leah Pascual, and Glenn Chan, recounting the matters that transpired therein.
On September 10, 2004, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, but removed the award of separation pay and ordered complainant to reinstate Tiu to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. On July 12, 2005, the NLRC denied the parties’ Motions for Reconsideration and sustained its earlier Resolution. On June 5, 2007, or simultaneously with the filing of the present administrative complaint, complainant filed a case for Grave Misconduct against respondents Go and Paras with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging the same set of facts in the administrative case.
On July 23, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC, with modification that the total monetary award should be P737,757.41. Complainant and his companies thus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court which is still pending resolution.
Respondent Go labelled as blatant lies the allegations of Chan in his complaint. He alleged that he met Chan, Jenny, and Glenn, through his mother’s close friends Yek Ti L. Chua and Ban Ha; that he came to know of the labor case of Susan Que Tiu during a casual bridge session with the latter’s godfather Alfredo Lim; that it was complainant who organized the meetings and persisted in asking his help regarding the said labor case; that he refused to help complainant because he would not want to influence his colleagues in the NLRC to reverse their judgments; that he did not impress upon complainant and his family that he is engaged in influence peddling; that when he relayed to Lim complainant’s intention to amicably settle the case, Lim agreed to be introduced to complainant; that he never introduced respondent Paras as his associate; that he only assisted the parties during the conciliation meetings but never coerced complainant to give in to the demands of Lim; and that he did not extort money from complainant. To substantiate his claim, Go submitted affidavits of Yek Ti L. Chua; Evangeline C. Apanay and Marina R. Taculao, both of whom are administrative personnel assigned at his office in the NLRC.
The Court held that after a careful study of the case, it found no sufficient evidence to support complainant’s claim. Except for complainant’s bare allegations, there was no proof that respondents engaged in influence peddling, extortion, or in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. It was axiomatic that he who alleges the same has the onus of validating it, the Court said.
The Court noted that the labor case of Tiu had already been decided in the latter’s favor prior the alleged meetings. Even after the said meetings, the NLRC still affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter which was adverse to herein complainant and his companies. If respondent Go really agreed to influence the outcome of the case, then the results would have been otherwise.
Significantly, the Court said the present complaint was filed only after the lapse of almost four years since the alleged extortion was made or two years since the resolution of the labor case by the NLRC. Complainant did not offer any reason for the belated filing of the case thus giving the impression that it was filed as a leverage against the case for Grave Oral Slander, Serious Slander by Deed, Grave Threats, and Alarms and Scandals (I.S. No. 07-71604-D) filed by Paras against complainant.
Also, the ruling of the labor arbiter was favorable to Tiu; hence, there was no need for respondents to get in touch with complainant to settle the case in Tiu’s behalf. In contrast, complainant who was the defeated party in the labor case has more reason to seek avenues to convince Tiu to accept a lower settlement amount. This Court is thus convinced that it was the complainant who arranged to meet with respondent Go and not the contrary as he averred.
