ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II vs. PROSECUTOR OFELIA M. D.

ARTUZ

August 29, 2017, A.C. No. 7253

x-----------------------x

ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II vs.JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717

FACTS:

This involves two consolidated cases, A.C. No. 7253 and A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 filed by Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II
against Prosecutor, now Presiding Judge, Ofelia M.D. Artuz of MTCC Branch 5, Iloilo.

A.C. No. 7253

Nava asserted that Artuz violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that enjoins lawyers to
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their colleagues in the profession. He added that
Artuz: (a) made malicious and false accusations in her comment when she accused him of crimes which are baseless
and purely conjectural; (b) had maliciously filed criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department
of Justice (DOJ) intended to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate him; and (c) had maligned her former superior and
colleague, City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldago, which acts constitute grave misconduct and are violative of the CPR
and of Republic Act No. (RA) 6713.

Nava filed before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) an opposition to the application for judgeship of Artuz.
Notwithstanding, Artuz was appointed on and took her Oath of Office as Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Thus, the
record of the disbarment case was retrieved from the DOJ and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
for appropriate action.

A.M.No.MTJ-08-1717

Petition for 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."

Prior to her appointment as Judge, Artuz had a number of cases filed against her, in which she was notified of her
cases, and she even filed her counter-affidavit and position paper appropriately.

OCA requested from the Secretary of the JBC a certified copy of Artuz's Personal Data Sheet (PDS), which she
submitted relative to her application to the judiciary.

On March 13, 2007, then Clerk of Court and Ex Officio JBC Secretary forwarded to the OCA the application
documents of Artuz on file with the JBC, including the latter's PDS subscribed and sworn to on October 28, 2005
(October 28, 2005 PDS).

In a Memorandum dated October 3, 2007, the OCA noted that the nullification case is deemed mooted by Artuz's
appointment to the judiciary, but nonetheless opined that the Court can review her appointment, pursuant to its
administrative supervision powers under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution.

Thus, it recommended that Artuz "be [directed] to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of notice why no
disciplinary action should be taken against her for not disclosing in her [October 28, 2005 PDS] filed with the JBC the
fact that she has been formally charged and that she has pending criminal, administrative and disbarment cases.”

Investigation Report dated September 30, 2014, EJ Galvez submitted that Artuz missed the point of the
administrative matter as she failed to explain why she omitted or falsely answered the subject questions in her
October 28, 2005 PDS submitted before the JBC.
He noted that, while a disbarment case filed against her had been pending before the DOJ since October 23, 2003,
Artuz nonetheless did not answer the PDS question requiring disclosure of any pending case or complaint filed
against her.

Worse, she answered "NO" when asked whether she had been charged with, convicted of, or sanctioned for violation
of any law, decree, ordinance, or regulation, or otherwise found guilty of an administrative offense in the same PDS.

In another PDS dated November 6, 2006, which she filed before the Office of the Administrative Services-OCA (OAS-
OCA), Artuz likewise answered "NO" to the question "Have you ever been formally charged?."

The OCA's Evaluation and Recommendation

OCA recommended that Artuz be found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public
Documents, and accordingly be dismissed from service effective immediately.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Artuz is guilty of:

(a) Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official document for her failure to disclose in the
subject PDS the material fact that she had been formally charged; and

(b) Grave Misconduct and violating the CPR and RA 6713.

RULING:

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA that Judge Artuz is guilty of Grave Misconduct,
Dishonesty, and Falsification of official document for her false statements in her two (2) PDS and for her willful
defiance of Court directives.

Misconduct has been defined as any unlawful conduct, on the part of the person concerned with the administration of
justice, prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. It implies wrongful, improper,
or unlawful conduct, not a mere error of judgment, motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose,
although it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent, and must have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful,
intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office.

On the other hand, dishonesty has been defined as "intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or
practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, appointment, or registration.
[It] is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his
honor, virtue, and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the
government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the
judiciary."

Artuz, as a member of the Bar, is presumed to be a learned individual, who knew, and is in fact expected to know,
exactly what the subject questions called for, what they mean, and what repercussions will befall her should she
make false declarations thereon. Obviously, she knew that she was committing an act of dishonesty, but nonetheless
decided to proceed with this action, in her October 28, 2005 PDS, and even tenaciously repeated the same in her
November 6, 2006 PDS submitted after she had been appointed to the judiciary.

Worse, notwithstanding the several opportunities given to her (through her May 28, 2007 and February 6, 2008
compliances and during the investigation of the nullification case), Artuz did not explain, in disregard of the Court's
directive, why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for not disclosing in the subject PDS the fact that she
has been formally charged and has pending cases.

All told, Artuz committed Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official document warranting the penalty
of dismissal from service. Under Sections 46 (A)77 and 52 (a), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service (RRACCS), in relation to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292,80 Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of official document are grave offenses
that carry the extreme penalty of dismissal from service for the first offense, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for holding public office.

In this regard, the Court invites attention to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,82 entitled "Re: Automatic Conversion of Some
Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and
Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such
Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar."

Under this rule, the administrative case against a judge for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification - which
are also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar - are automatically considered as disciplinary
proceedings against him or her as a member of the Bar.

This is the proper course for the Court to take as a violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct, embodied
in the new Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of
Judicial Ethics, constitutes a breach of the following Canons of the CPR:

CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 - A LA WYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION x x x.

CANON 10-A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

CANON 11 - A LA WYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.83

Artuz’s misconduct likewise constitutes a contravention of Section 2 7, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which enjoins
a judge, at the pain of disbarment or suspension, from committing acts of deceit or for willfully disobeying the orders
of the Court:

Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphases supplied)

In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby requires Artuz to show cause why she should not likewise be suspended,
disbarred, or otherwise proceeded against, as a member of the Bar.

As regards A.C. No. 7253, the record does not show that Artuz had been given an opportunity to defend and answer
the allegations against her for Grave Misconduct and violations of the CPR and RA 6713. The Court, therefore, finds
it proper to require Artuz to file her comment before it takes action on this disbarment case.