SC fines Cebu lawyer P5T for filing frivolous plaint

The Supreme Court fined a Cebu lawyer P5,000 for filing a frivolous complaint against a court sheriff who enforced a court order directing a complainant to vacate a lot he was occupying. The SC first division presided by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in its decision handed down last August 22 ruled that lawyer Audie C. Arnado is liable for violating the provisions as provided for in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

"A lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility," said Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago who penned the decision.

Arnado had filed a complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator accusing sheriff Edilberto Suarin of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Cebu City for serious misconduct, oppression, harassment, and unethical conduct for prematurely implementing a writ of execution.

The lawyer claimed that Suarin banged the gate of his house, shouting, and creating public scandal, while posting notices at the gate that caused him humiliation. Suarin denied Arnado's allegations. But Arnado maintained that his complaint against Suarin was not frivolous and was not filed to exact revenge but to bring to the attention of the Court the corrupt acts of judicial employees.

He alleged that Judge Mamerto Coliflores of MTCC-Cebu City, was paid P30,000.00 to render the judgment of eviction against him while Suarin also received P60,000.00 to implement the order. Arnado said Suarin implemented the writ without waiting for the trial court's resolution of their complaint to annul the sale and deed of donation. But the Office of the Court Administrator said Arnado's complaint is without basis.

The case stemmed after judge Coliflores resolved the ejectment case filed by Dra. Lourdes Libres Rosaroso against Arnado directing the latter to vacate the premises he was occupying and to turn over physical possession of the property to Rosaroso.

"In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Administrative proceedings against judicial employees are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt," the SC ruled.

The High tribunal said Arnado claimed that Suarin banged at his gate, shouted and posted notices at the gate but he failed to mention the details and the dates on which these infractions were alleged to have been committed. "As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary," it said. - Rene U. Borromeo