Case Digest: ELSA L. MONDEJAR v. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA

ELSA L. MONDEJAR v. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA

496 SCRA 1 (2006)

An administrative complaint filed by any person against a lawyer may be acted upon by the court.

Petitioner Elsa L. Mondejar (Mondejar) filed two separate complaints with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Atty. Vivian G. Rubia (Atty. Rubia) alleging that the latter committed deceitful acts and malpractice in violation of the code of professional responsibility and falsified public document.

The administrative complaints were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. During the pendency of the investigation, Mondejar died. Her husband requested that the consideration of the case be continued on the basis of documentary evidence already submitted.

The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the finding of the Investigating Commissioner’s Report that respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for making a false declaration in a public document. It, however, modified the recommended sanction in that, instead of suspension from the practice of law for one month, it merely warned Atty. Rubia that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. Atty. Rubia filed a motion for reconsideration with the BOG but was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an administrative complaint against lawyers may prosper when the complainant is neither a party nor a witness in a purported contract subject of said complaint

HELD:

An administrative complaint filed by any person against a lawyer may be acted upon by this court is settled. In re Almacen explains the raison d’ etre: Disciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not-and does not involve- a trail of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is the primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of the member who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of the attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.