ARSENIO v. ATTY. TABUZO

FRANCIS C. ARSENIO, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. JOHAN A. TABUZO, Respondent  

A.C. No. 8658

April 24, 2017

Facts :

This a case which was filed by Francis A. Arsenio for Disbarment against Atty. Johan A. TABUZO for conduct unbecoming of a member of a bar.

The case was initiated when an administrative complaint filed by Arsenio before the Philippine Overseas Employment Office against a Recruitment agency JS Contractor. On May 10, 2000 the hearing was set and Atty. Johan Tabuzo , the Overseas Employment Adjudicator was assigned to hear the case. Arsenio was asked by Atty. Tabuzo , the complainant to sign three (3) blank sheets of paper which he did.

A week later after the scheduled hearing, the complainant went back to the respondent why was he made to sign on a three(3) blank sheets of paper but Atty. Tabuzo replied angrily and uttered insulting words towards the complainant. Arsenio called the Office of Senator Cayetano and was advised to clarify in the POEA what was the three (3) blank sheet of paper that he was made to sign was all about. Atty. Tabuzo when asked about it , was angry again and shouted at Arsenio and threatening him that his case might be gone if he will not comeback the next day.

The complainant later discovered that the case he filed was Dismissed against the recruitments agency. Thereafter, Arsenio filed a complaint against Tabuzo before the Office of the Ombudsman for Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices , RA 3019.

A resolution was made and an Information was filed against Atty. Tabuzo. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent alleging that no Atty. Tabuzo in the POEA Office and alleged that no copy of summons was ever served to him. The said Motion which He filed was his initiative to clear his name and the same was Denied. In a decision dated December 6, 2011 the respondent was acquitted for Violation of RA3019 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 213 , Mandaluyong City.

Later, Arsenio filed a letter-complaint before the Supreme Court against Atty. Tabuzo and the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

Atty. Tabuzo filed his Omnibus Comment with Motion to Dismiss, denying the accusations against him alleging that he never did the alleged unethical acts or have uttered insulting words towards the complainant. That he never acted a conduct unbecoming as public officer. His allegations was supported by an affidavit executed by two(2) Employment Adjudicators in the POEA attesting that there was no existence of the said untoward incidents happened as alleged by Arsenio in his complaint. In addition he manifested that his right was violated, since he was not notified of the case which was filed against him and had never received any order from the Office.

The IBP Commissioner and the Board of Governors ruled the case based on the investigation, report and recommendation of the IBP finding Atty. Tabuzo violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration but subsequently it was denied.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. Tabuzo will be disbarred in the practice of law by reason of His conduct unbecoming of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled , Dismissing the disbarment case against Tabuzo. According to the Court, disbarment or suspension doesn't meant to grant relief or remedy to a civil case but rather to cleanse the ranks of the legal professions its undesirable members to protect the public and the Courts.

In a disbarment case the burden of proof rest upon the complainant. In this case the complainant failed to present his evidence substantially. That even the name of the respondent was provided incorrectly.

The Court resolves DISMISSING the disbarment case against Atty. Tabuzo.