Tan vs.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,

501 SCRA 156, G.R. No. 173940
September 5, 2006
Associate Justice Tinga

Doctrine:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is not a regular court and thus is
not endowed with the power to investigate and resolve judicial matters
pending before the regular courts.

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, they belong to a class of their

own, and are distinct from that of civil or criminal actions. To be sure, a
finding of liability in a civil case or a conviction in a criminal case is not
necessary for finding a member of the bar guilty in an administrative
proceeding.

Facts:
Sometime in January of 2002 Tomas G. Tan, a stock holder and director of
CST Enterprises Inc., discovered that two parcel of land owned by the
corporation was used as a mortgage to secure a load with the Philippine
Business Bank, this loan was acquired by a John Dennis Chua, Chua was
purportedly authorized by the Board of Directors of the corporation as
shown by the Corporate Secretary’s Certificate dated 04 April 2001 signed
by Atty. Jaime N. Soriano.

Tomas G. Tan filed a complaint with the IBP, he alleged that Atty. Jaime N.
Soriano committed deceit, malpractice, falsification of public documents,
gross misconduct and violation of oath of office, because Atty. Jaime N.
Soriano was never elected as the Corporate Secretary of CST Enterprise
Inc., and that there were no board meeting held on March 30, 2001 to
authorize John Dennis Chua to contract a loan with Philippine Business
Bank because two of the three directors are not in the country at that
time.

Aside from complaint filed with the IBP, another case was filed at the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City by the petitioner, the case seeks to
declare the unenforceability of the promissory note and mortgage, the
nullity of the Secretary’s Certificate, and the injunction, with a prayer for an
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.

In the course of the proceedings in the said civil case, petitioners claim to
have gathered more information and seen the “extent of the plot or
machinations” of respondent and the participation of other individuals,
including Atty. Taala who was the Assistant Vice President for Legal
Services of PBB. Atty. Taala had testified in Civil Case No. 02-299 that
sometime in January 2001, Felipe Chua personally delivered to him CST’s
titles to the mortgaged lots and that Felipe Chua assured him that
respondent is the Corporate Secretary of CST. Thus, CST’s loan application
was recommended for favorable consideration. Which the petitioner allege
is not true because Felipe Chua was abroad at that time. The loan
amounting to 91.1 million pesos was also funneled not to CST Enterprises
Inc., but to Mabuhay Sugar Central Inc., where Atty. Jaime N. Soriano is the
incorporator, stockholder, and President.

After this further understanding, the petitioner, on 16 June 2003, filed with
the IBP, Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) a Motion to
Amend/Supplement the Complaint with Motion to Admit
Amended/Supplemental Complaint, claiming that respondent and Atty.
Taala had facilitated and recommended the approval of the allegedly
spurious loans and mortgage entered into by John Dennis Chua.

The Commission, however, denied the motion on 28 December 2003 on

the ground that the amendments/ supplements involve proceedings
pending before the trial courts and that the determination of the matters
presented belong to said courts which have already acquired jurisdiction
over them.

Thus, the petitioner seeks to reconsider the judgement of the

Commissioner filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the Commission
committed a grave abuse of discretion because denying the admission of
the Amended/Supplemental Complaint would prevent him from filing a
new complaint against Atty. Jaime N. Soriano and Atty. Taala. As a result, it
will make the respondent in the original complaint answerable only to less
serious charges.

The respondent on the other hand claims that the petitioner breached the
rule of proceedings against lawyers when it filed a civil case, the
respondents alleged that when petitioner filed a case with RTC of Makati it
in fact announced to the whole worlds that pending disbarment which is
meant to harass and vex him before the final verdict of the IBP.

Issue:
1. Whether the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion when it
denied petitioner’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
2. Whether the petitioner breached the rule of proceeding in disbarment
case.
Ruling:
1. No, The Commission did not commit a grave abuse of discretion.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is merely tasked to investigate
and make recommendation on complaints for disbarment, suspension, and
discipline of lawyers.It is not a regular court and thus is not endowed with
the power to investigate and resolve judicial matters pending before the
regular courts.
Petitioners have filed Civil Case No. 02-299, seeking the declaration of
unenforceability of promissory notes and mortgage, nullity of secretary’s
certificate, injunction, damages, and the issuance of a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction. In the said case, petitioners
allege that the loans contracted by CST from PBB were not sanctioned nor
ratified by the CST Board of Directors and/or stockholders, but were only
facilitated by respondent and Atty. Taala, as well as by other persons
through the use of the spurious Secretary’s Certificate. Likewise pending is
another case against respondent and John Dennis Chua, et al. for estafa
through falsification of public documents, docketed as Criminal Case No.
04-3776 of the RTC of Makati which appears to involve the same allegedly
unauthorized mortgage. The amendment filed by the petitioner is similar in
nature, as it seeks to find Atty. Taal liable for making untruthful statements.
The Commission is not empowered to to resolve matters which are in
pending resolution by the regular courts, thus the jurisdiction on the case
of Atty. Taal falls in the regular court, to prevent or avoid contradictory
findings in the case.

2. Yes, Tomas G. Tan violates the rules of procedure in disbarment case

when it disclosed the pending case, in the IBP, to the regular court.
Under Section 18, of Rules 139-B of Rules of court, “Confidentiality. —
Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However,
the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in
other cases.” The reason for this rules has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i)
to enable the court and the investigator to make the investigation free
from any extraneous influence or interference; (ii) to protect the personal
and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges of
disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting
the publication of such charges pending their resolution; and (iii) to deter
the press from publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon.
When petitioner disclosed the responses in the IBP proceedings, it
breached the confidentiality of the case against Atty. Soriano.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners are REMINDED to

preserve the confidentiality of the administrative proceedings. The IBP is
ordered to resume its hearings in CBD No. 02-267 consistently with this
resolution. Costs against petitioners. Tan vs. IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, 501 SCRA 156, G.R. No. 173940 September 5, 2006