Supreme Court saves the IBP from tort case

See:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/2011/08/08051101.php

IBP Not Liable For Damages for Recommendation of Disbarment Without Full-Blown Hearing

Posted: August 5, 2011; By Jen T. Tuazon

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP Board) cannot be held liable for damages for prematurely recommending the disbarment of a lawyer based solely on the position papers and affidavits of witnesses of the parties and without the benefit of an exhaustive hearing.

The Supreme Court's Third Division, in a decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, thus reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals which had denied the special civil action for certiorari filed by the IBP Board against the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. The IBP Board was assailing the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss the case for damages filed against the IBP Board for the complaint's lack of cause of action. In setting aside the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for damages against the IBP Board.

The Court held that the complaint for damages filed by Atty. Glen C. Gacott against the IBP Board for the latter's recommendation of Atty. Gacott's disbarment without a hearing has no cause of action as the IBP Board merely exercised delegated powers to investigate the complaint against Atty. Gacott and submit their report and recommendation to the Court. Even though the Supreme Court had later remanded the disbarment case to the IBP so a full-blown hearing on the matter could be held, the Court ruled that the IBP Board cannot be charged for honest errors committed in the performance of its quasi-judicial function. The Court added that ruling otherwise would result in lower court judges whose acts the appellate courts have annulled on the ground of grave abuse of discretion would be open targets for damage suits.

The Court also noted that the IBP Board prepared its report and recommendation to the Court based on papers and documents Atty. Gacott himself presented without reservation for the resolution of the disbarment case against him.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. held that an exhaustive hearing is not necessary in disciplinary cases, including those for disbarment citing the Rules of Court and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP which provide that the determination of whether or not a hearing is necessary is at the discretion of the IBP and its Investigating Commissioner.

On  February 23, 2003, the IBP Board, then composed of Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Leonard S. De Vera, Romulo A. Rivera, Dante G. Ilaya, Pura Angelica Y. Santiago, Rosario T. Setias-Reyes, Jose Vicente B. Salazar, Manuel M. Mozon, Immanuel L. Sodusta, Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. and Lydia A. Navarro received an administrative complaint against Atty. Gacott for gross misconduct, deceit, and gross dishonesty. Designated Investigating Commissioner Navarro summoned the parties to a mandatory conference and required them to submit their position papers where she later based her recommendation of a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board adopted Commissioner Navarro's findings but increased the penalty to disbarment which it then transmitted to the Supreme Court. The High Court, however, remanded the case to the IBP Board for further proceedings in order to give the parties the chance to fully present their case, noting that the Investigating Commissioner should have subpoenaed and examined the witnesses of the parties considering the gravity of the charge against Atty. Gacott. Atty. Gacott for his part filed a complaint for damages against the IBP Board before the RTC, claiming that the High Court's remand of the case to the IBP Board is an affirmation of the latter's arbitrary abuse of its investigatory power. (GR No. 178941, Cadiz, et al, v. Gacott, July 27, 2011)