Puno v. Marasigan, A.C. No. 12674, October 14, 2020

SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12674. October 14, 2020.]
LEONARDO G. PUNO, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOHN

NATHANIEL I. MARASIGAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 14 October 2020 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12674 (Leonardo G. Puno v. Atty. John Nathaniel I.
Marasigan). — For the Court's resolution is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated
March 10, 2014 filed by Leonardo G. Puno (complainant) charging Atty. John
Nathaniel I. Marasigan (respondent) with violation of the Rules of Court and
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 2
The Antecedents
The case stemmed from several criminal cases filed by complainant
against Joel R. Umandap (Umandap) at the Davao City Prosecutors Office.
On October 8, 2007, the corresponding Informations were filed at the
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), 11th Judicial Region, Branch 4, Davao
City docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 129, 148-D-07 to 129, 150-D-07 for
violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1829 3 and Case No. 129-151-D-07
for Perjury. 4 Respondent was a counsel of Umandap. 5
On August 13, 2008, during the second scheduled arraignment of
Umandap, respondent manifested in open court that he filed an Urgent
Motion for Reinvestigation before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP),
Davao City on the ground that Umandap was deprived of the opportunity to
file his counter-affidavit. The MTCC granted the motion and referred the
records of the cases back to OCP, Davao City. 6 Despite the lapse of time
from August 13, 2008 to February 10, 2009, respondent did not submit any
counter-affidavit. Thus, the OCP, Davao City rendered a Resolution on
Reinvestigation 7 dated February 10, 2009 recommending that Umandap be
arraigned and trial proceed on the merits. Acting on the Resolution, 8 the
MTCC issued an Order to arraign Umandap on June 16, 2009 which is for the
third time. 9
Six days before the scheduled arraignment, respondent filed an
Omnibus Motion [Motion to Quash and Motion to Refer to Another
Investigating Prosecutor] 10 stating, among others, that the complaints
should be quashed on the ground that "the facts charged do not constitute
an offense for lack of probable cause." 11
The events prompted complainant to file the present complaint
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
alleging as follows:
First, respondent falsely quoted Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court by adding the phrase "for lack of probable cause" under paragraph
1.a. of his Omnibus Motion, viz.:
1. The criminal complaints should be quashed on the
ground that:
a. The facts charged do not constitute an
o ff e n s e for lack of probable cause. 12 (Emphasis
supplied.)
Second, in order to justify his claim that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, respondent cited a Resolution 13 dated November 5,
2007 issued by the Ombudsman in OMB-M-C-05-0427-I entitled "Leonardo G.
Puno vs. Glenn A. Olandria, et al." and alleged that before the instant
criminal cases had been filed against Umandap, complainant had already
filed several Ombudsman cases against Engineer Zoila Gudin (Engr. Gudin)
and Glenn Olandria, all public officers of the LGU of Panabo City with the
Ombudsman; and that neither one of them was ever indicted for lack of
sufficient evidence. 14
Paragraph 4 of the Omnibus Motion 15 reads:
4. The actual facts flowing from these Ombudsman cases
are exactly [the] same actual facts in these instant criminal cases.
The only exception is that in the former the accused is merely the
witness for these public officers as against the private complainant
while in the latter he is now the accused, singling him out for revenge
as the public officer were never indicted at all for lack of sufficient
evidence . 16 (Emphasis supplied)
Complainant maintained that respondent twisted the text of the
subject Resolution 17 when he stated that no public officer was ever indicted
on the criminal complaint considering that Engr. Gudin was criminally
charged with violation of Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. (RA) 6713. 18
Third, in a Motion for Reconsideration 19 dated August 23, 2011 filed at
the OCP, Davao City, respondent again twisted the text of the Ombudsman
Resolution 20 in this wise:
5. The actual facts flowing from these Ombudsman cases are
exactly same actual facts in these instant criminal cases. The only
exception in that in the former the accused is merely the witness for
these public officers as against the private complainant while in the
latter he is now the accused, singling him out for revenge as public
officer were never [indicted] at all for lack of sufficient evidence." 21
xxx xxx xxx.
7. Needies[s] to state, the same findings of facts were adopted in
toto by the Honorable Ombudsman in the above-mentioned
administrative cases against the said public officers. Only Mr. Gudin
got a mere slapped (sic) on the wrist, while Mr. Olandria was
exonerated. 22 (Emphasis supplied)
In his Answer, 23 respondent denied the charges against him. He
asserted that he did not deliberately misrepresent the text of the subject
Ombudsman Resolution 24 before the OCP and the MTCC. 25
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of suspension for
three (3) months from the practice of law for violation of Rule 10.02 and Rule
10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR. 26 The IBP Investigating Commissioner pointed
out that respondent cannot easily declare that he did not deliberately or
knowingly intend to twist, misrepresent, or misquote the text of the
Ombudsman Resolution 27 considering that the improper citation was done
in two separate pleadings. 28
Nonetheless, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that
respondent did not violate Section 3 (c), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court when
he failed to submit Umandap's counter-affidavit before the OCP, Davao City
considering that the MTCC, in a Resolution 29 dated September 15, 2009,
appreciated respondent's reason for not filing it. 30
On February 22, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution
31 adopting the IBP Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner to impose upon the Respondent
the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3)
months. 32 (Emphasis omitted).
Respondent moved for reconsideration, 33 but the IBP Board of
Governors denied it in a Resolution 34 dated December 6, 2018.
Issue Before the Court
Whether respondent is administratively liable for violation of Rules
10.02 and 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors.
As correctly found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent
knowingly misrepresented the text of the Ombudsman's Resolution 35 dated
November 5, 2007 in OMB-M-C-05-0427-I on two occasions: first, when he
stated under paragraph 4 of his Omnibus Motion 36 that no public officer was
indicted in the criminal complaint, when in truth, Engr. Gudin was criminally
charged with violation of Section 7 (d) of RA 6713; and second, when he
reiterated the same misrepresentation in his Motion for Reconsideration
dated August 23, 2011.
The dispositive portion of the Ombudsman Resolution 37 dated
November 5, 2007 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds and so
holds that there exists probable cause to warrant the indictment of
respondent ZOILO C. GUDIN, JR. for violation of Section 7 (d) of RA
6713. Let the enclosed Information be filed in Court. x x x. 38
In insisting that neither one of the public officers charged in the

Ombudsman cases was indicted for lack of sufficient evidence, respondent
knowingly misquoted and misrepresented the contents of a resolution or
authority.
Worse, respondent in his Motion for Reconsideration 39 added that
Engr. Gudin got a mere slap on the wrist as penalty. However, in an Order 40
dated April 21, 2009, the Ombudsman meted out Engr. Gudin a penalty of a
fine equivalent to his six months salary, to wit: 41
WHEREFORE, premises considered respondent Gudin's Motion
seeking a reversal of the assailed Decision finding him guilty of
violating Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 is hereby DENIED.
Nonetheless, the imposition of the penalty of a fine equivalent to one
(1) year salary of respondent Gudin is hereby MODIFIED to a fine
equivalent to six (6) months salary in accordance with Section 56 (e)
of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. x x
x. 42
Evidently, the penalty imposed is not a mere slap on the wrist of Engr.
Gudin.
Respondent's actuation is indubitably a violation of Canon 10 of the
CPR which mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and good
faith to the Court. In particular, respondent violated Rule 10.02 and Rule
10.03 of the CPR which provide as follows:
Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument
of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved.
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and
shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Section 20 (d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a lawyer
must employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and
never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by any artifice or false
statement of fact or law. Undoubtedly, respondent did not employ means
which are consistent with truth and honor when he misquoted Section 3 (a)
of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court and twisted the text of the Ombudsman
Resolution before the OCP, Davao City and the MTCC.
As jurisprudence elucidates, lawyers have an obligation to the court as
well as to the opposing party to make only truthful statements in their
pleadings. 43 The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could
not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to
be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could
easily be imagined. 44
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. John Nathaniel I. Marasigan is found
GUILTY of violating Section 20 (d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule
10.02 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is hereby SUSPENDED for THREE (3) MONTHS from the practice of
law, effective upon the receipt of this Resolution. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Atty. John Nathaniel I. Marasigan is DIRECTED to report the date of his
receipt of this Resolution within (5) days from notice, to enable this Court to
determine when his suspension shall take effect.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be appended to the personal record of Atty. John Nathaniel I.
Marasigan as a member of the Bar, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for
distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for
circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERSITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 2-4.
2. Id. at 3
3. Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders.
4. Rollo , p. 2.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 5; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Carfelita B. Cadiente-Flores.
7. Id. at 6-7.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 2.
10. Id. at 8-10.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 11-13.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 10.

17. Id. at 11-13.
18. Id. at 3.
19. Id. at 14-16.
20. Id. at 11-13.
21. Id. at 10.

22. Id. at 15.
23. Id. at 21-39.

24. Id. at 11-13.
25. Id. at 244.
26. Id. at 246.
27. Id. at 11-13.

28. Id.
29. Id. at 64-65.
30. Id. at 245.
31. Id. at 242.

32. Id.
33. Id. at 248-253.
34. Id. at 271.
35. Id. at 11-13.
36. Id. at 8-10.

37. Id. at 11-13.
38. Id. at 12-13.
39. Id. at 14-16
40. Id. at 17-19.

41. Id. at 18.
42. Id.
43. Atty. Asa v. Atty. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9, 23 (2006).
44. Id.

Puno v. Marasigan, A.C. No. 12674, October 14, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puno v. Marasigan, A.C. No. 12674, October 14, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puno v. Marasigan, A.C. No. 12674, October 14, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12674. October 14, 2020.]

LEONARDO G. PUNO, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOHN

In insisting that neither one of the public oﬃcers charged in the

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERSITA AQUINO TUAZON

16. Id. at 10.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

21. Id. at 10.

23. Id. at 21-39.

27. Id. at 11-13.

31. Id. at 242.

36. Id. at 8-10.

40. Id. at 17-19.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like