This is a disbarment case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in September 2021. The case was initiated by Spouses Edwin S. Chua and Greta A. Chua against Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra for alleged violation of Rules 1.01, 2 and 1.03, 3 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Spouses Chua were respondents in several criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22 filed by Chainglass Enterprise, Inc., with Atty. Tasarra as the lawyer of Chainglass. The Spouses Chua claimed that Atty. Tasarra demonstrated insensitivity and rendered him unfit to practice law when he stated that it was the Spouses Chua's strategy not to personally receive a copy of the Demand Letter or Notice of Dishonor to escape criminal liability. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit but sternly warned Atty. Tasarra to obey the orders of the IBP. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the IBP and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. However, the Supreme Court meted out a fine of P15,000.00 against Atty. Tasarra for his non-participation in the proceedings of the IBP. Legal Issue: Whether Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra should be disbarred for violation of Rules 1.01, 2 and 1.03, 3 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13045. September 27, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4518]
SPS. EDWIN S. CHUA AND GRETA A. CHUA, petitioners, vs.ATTY. RUDY T. TASARRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13045 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4518] (Sps. Edwin S. Chua and Greta A. Chua vs. Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra). — Before the Court is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by the Spouses Edwin S. Chua (Edwin) and Greta A. Chua (Greta) (collectively, Spouses Chua) against respondent Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra (Atty. Tasarra) for alleged violation of Rules 1.01, 2 and 1.03, 3 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Spouses Chua were the respondents in several criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22 filed by Chainglass Enterprise, Inc. (Chainglass). On the other hand, Atty. Tasarra was the lawyer of Chainglass in the criminal cases. 4 In the Resolution 5 dated January 18, 2007, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) recommended the filing of five Informations charging Greta for violation of BP 22 and the dismissal of the charges against Edwin for lack of merit as it found that it was Greta who drew and issued the subject checks. 6 Despite this, Atty. Tasarra maintained that Greta and Edwin (Spouses Chua) conspired with each other in issuing the bum checks. 7 Hence, the Spouses Chua filed the instant complaint against Atty. Tasarra. 8 DETACa
In addition, Spouses Chua asserted that Atty. Tasarra demonstrated insensitivity, which rendered him unfit to continue to practice law, when he stated that: "it has been the strategy of the Spouses Chua not to personally receive a copy of the Demand Letter or Notice of Dishonor so as to escape criminal liability." 9 They further averred that Greta was diagnosed with breast cancer and has been undergoing radiation therapy 10 which rendered the accusations against them implausible. 11
For his part, Atty. Tasarra failed to submit any answer or evidence refuting the allegations of Spouses Chua in the instant Complaint. 12
In the Report and Recommendation 13 dated November 25, 2019, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Rogelio D. Torres, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner) recommended that the instant Complaint be dismissed for lack of merit, but sternly warned Atty. Tasarra to obey the orders of the IBP. 14
In its Resolution 15 dated February 28, 2020, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation with modification in that it imposed a fine of P15,000.00 against Atty. Tasarra for his non-participation in the proceedings of the IBP. 16
The Court resolves to adopt and approve the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the IBP in the Report and Recommendation 17 as adopted and approved 18 by the IBP Board of Governors.
In Ladonga v. People, 19 the Court held that BP 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. 20 Thus, Atty. Tasarra did not commit any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct in asserting that Edwin also violated BP 22, despite not having signed the subject checks, on the basis of conspiracy.
In fine, the Court finds no error on the part of the IBP when it dismissed the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Tasarra for lack of merit. More so, the Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the acts of Atty. Tasarra in (1) seeking for an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint but without filing it; and (2) not attending any of the scheduled Mandatory Conferences 21 indicated not only a high degree of irresponsibility, but also an utter disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings. 22 In doing so, Atty. Tasarra violated Canon 11 of the CPR which states: "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others."
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as adopted and approved by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. The Complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Further, Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra is meted out a FINE in the amount of P15,000.00 for disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline.
Payment shall be made within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Resolution. Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra is directed to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten (10) days from payment. aDSIHc
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra's records.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-9.
2. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
4.Rollo, p. 139.
5.Id. at 11-12.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 57.
8.Id. at 139.
9. See Supplemental Motion for Reinvestigation and/or Reconsideration dated November 20, 2012, filed by Atty. Tasarra in I.S. No. XV-07-INV-11-09377, entitled "Edwin Chua & Greta Chua v. Luz O. Talusan, et al." for perjury and false testimony, id. at 50-51.
10. See Medical Certificate dated September 26, 2011, issued by Dr. Marina A. Chua-Tan of Cardinal Santos Medical Center, id. at 65.
11.Id. at 140.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 138-147.
14.Id. at 147.
15.Id. at 136-137.
16.Id. at 136.
17.Id. at 138-147.
18. See Notice of Resolution dated February 28, 2020, id. at 136-137.
19. 492 Phil. 60 (2005).
20.Id. at 69.
21. See Notices of Mandatory Conference dated April 15, 2015 and October 26, 2015, id. at 80 and 82.
22.Domingo v. Sacdalan, A.C. No. 12475, March 26, 2019. See also Roque, Jr. v. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018.