[Ingles v. De la Serna, A.C. No. 5763. December 3,
2002]
"X x x .
A review of the records would indeed show
that no formal investigation was conducted by the IBP.
In Cottam vs. Atty. Laysa (326 SCRA 614) and
Baldomar vs. Atty. Paras (348 SCRA 212), the Court outlined the procedure for
disciplinary action against a member of the Bar. The Court elucidated:
“Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed
to the Court. If, at the
outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it
outrightly dismisses the case. If,
however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such
as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings
submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case
during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex
parte investigation may only
be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. Hereunder are some of the pertinent
provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on this matter; viz.:
“`SEC. 3. Duties
of the National Grievance Investigator. – The National Grievance Investigators
shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred
to them by the IBP Board of Governors.
`x x
x x x
x x x x
`SEC. 5. Service
or dismissal. – If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator
shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him
to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit
action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the
complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of
Governors upon his recommendation. A
copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished to the complainant and
the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the
complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint.
`No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of
the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges,
or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.
`x x x x x x x x x
`SEC. 8. Investigation.
– Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of
the case. He shall have the
power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given
full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be
heard by himself and counsel. However,
if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte.
`The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three
(3) months form the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by
the Board of Governors upon prior application.
`Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful
order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt
of Court. The corresponding
charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors
which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days
from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings,
if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for
hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors
shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting
forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to
the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of
penalty.’
“The procedures outlined by the Rules are meant to ensure that the
innocents are spared from wrongful condemnation and that only the guilty are
meted their just due. Obviously,
these requirements cannot be taken lightly.”
Subject to such highly exceptional cases as
it might deem warranted, the Court here reiterates the indispensability for a
formal investigation of complaints against members of the Bar particularly,
such as in this instance, where the IBP would recommend the serious penalty of
suspension from the practice of law.
X x x."
