PRC CASES AGAINST CPA’s

[A.C. No. 6467. August 1, 2005]

CRUZ vs. GONZALES

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 1 2005.

Adm. Case No. 6467 (Arturo S. Cruz vs. Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzales.)

Respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzales (Atty. Gonzales) filed a complaint dated 22 October
2003 with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) against Florentina R. Antonio
(Antonio), a certified public accountant who audited the financial statements of the Rural
Green Bank of Caraga, Butuan City. Therein, he alleged that Antonio did not possess the
independence required of an external auditor, considering that her "common-law husband," Dr.
Arturo Cruz (Dr. Cruz), served as a consultant of the said bank when she audited the said
financial statements. It was claimed that as a result, Antonio bore an indirect pecuniary interest
in the bank, which she had failed to disclose pursuant to Sections 4 and 7 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct as promulgated by the Board of Accountancy. Atty. Gonzales likewise
assailed Antonio's professional competency and alluded to several instances in support of this
claim.

On 28 April 2004, Atty. Gonzales filed with the PRC a Motion to Render Judgment on his
complaint. Attached thereto was an Affidavit-Testimony, wherein he averred that Antonio was
living with Dr. Cruz, who happened to be a married man, and that circumstance constituted
immorality on her part.

On these, Dr. Cruz now seeks from this Court the disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gonzales.
He characterizes the averment of immorality made in the Affidavit-Testimony as contrary to his
rights to due process and fair play, considering that he was not a party to the case against
Antonio before the PRC and thus was unable to answer the said allegations, which cast
aspersion on his reputation and character. Dr. Cruz likewise asserted that these allegations
warranted a separate criminal charge for libel. Dr. Cruz concludes that Atty. Gonzales violated
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribes lawyers from
engaging in lawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.

In his Comment, Atty. Gonzales claims that the instant complaint is the third disbarment case
filed against him by the same group of persons in control of the Rural Green Bank of Caraga
who have likewise filed perjury and libel cases against him. He recounts that as minority
stockholders of the said bank, he and his wife's family had filed a case with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for inspection and accounting of expenses, and posits that the said
disbarment and criminal cases were mere retaliatory actions of the bank. He argues that he
never impleaded an additional ground of immorality through the Motion to Render
Judgment, considering that he had already averred in his complaint the fact that Antonio and
Dr. Cruz had a common-law relationship. Moreover, the allegation of that anomalous
circumstances was integral to the complaint, which had alleged that Antonio, by reason of her
relationship with Dr. Cruz, did not possess the requisite independence required of an external
auditor. Pertinently, Atty. Gonzales claims that Dr. Cruz had also filed a libel case against him,
now pending with the Manila City Prosecutor's Office arising from the same allegation; and
that his allegations against Antonio and Dr. Cruz were privileged communications which enjoy
protection of law.

There is no impediment to the immediate dismissal of this complaint. We certainly cannot see
how Atty. Gonzales's allegation in the proceedings before the PRC of the "immoral"
common-law relationship between Antonio and Dr. Cruz would constitute a violation of Dr.
Cruz's rights to due process and "fair play." Dr. Cruz is not a respondent in the complaint
before the PRC. The PRC has no jurisdiction to pass judgment on any aspect of Dr. Cruz's
behavior, only that of Antonio's. He will not be inflicted sanction or punishment should the PRC
find merit in the complaint. As such, none of his legal rights are at stake in the PRC complaint
so as to require his participation in the aforestated action. The Court is not apt to impose
severe penalties on a member of the Bar on the basis of a haphazard invocation of an alleged
due process violation.

Anent Atty. Gonzales's allegations as to Dr. Cruz's conduct being unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful, we note that such a legal conclusion can only obtain if the veracity of these
allegations is established. For that purpose, the resolution of the pending complaint before the
PRC, as well as the libel charge before the Manila City Prosecutor's Office, would be
necessary to make a factual determination on the truth of the said allegation. Since such
question could be well resolved in the said pending cases, it would be premature for the Court
to independently adjudge such allegation to the effect of precluding the findings of the PRC
and the Manila City Prosecutor's Office.

As to Atty. Gonzales's defense that his averments on the common-law relationship of Antonio
and Dr. Cruz and his characterization thereof as immoral fall under the class of absolutely
privileged communication, having been made in the course of judicial and administrative
proceedings, this should be properly considered in the resolution of the libel charge. Suffice it
to say for now that the protection of absolutely privileged communications shall be
acknowledged and enforced by this Court even in disciplinary proceedings against members
of the Bar.

The Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

REF http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/august/ac_6467.php

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997

OLIVIA B. CAMANAG, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE JESUS F. GUERRERO IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY
PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, NESTOR GONZALES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, THE HONORABLE MARINO DELA CRUZ IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 22 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, respondents.

On August 2, 1993, the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) issued the Table of
Results of those who failed the May, 1993 Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Licensure
Examinations. On Page 11 thereof, Sequence No. 493, petitioner Olivia B. Camanag was
listed as having failed with a general average of 50.00% (Annex "1").

However, on December 15, 1993, petitioner in accomplishing her Personal Data sheet
(CSC form No. 212) as employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) indicated under
question No. 18 that she passed the May, 1993 Board Examinations with a rating of
75.42% (Annex "2").

On July 4, 1994, an anonymous letter was sent to PRC Chairman Hermogenes P. Pobre
"claiming that certain BIR employees allegedly passed the CPA Licensure Exams under
anomalous circumstances" (Annex "3").

Still, on July 28, 1994, petitioner claimed to have received what was purportedly a
"Certified True Copy" of her passing rating sheet, allegedly signed by PRC Acting
Assistant Chief Leandro O. Ordenes (Mr. Leandro O. Ordenes is actually the Records
Officer of the PRC) (Pet., Annex "C").

On August 24, 1994, PRC Chairman Pobre wrote Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez that
BIR employees Marilyn Lee, Connie Dimapilis, Eilene Purification, Elenita Villamor,
Lodiminda Crizaldo, petitioner Olivia Camanag and Maria Rosario de los Reyes, did not
actually pass the CPA licensure examinations (Annex "3").

On October 5, 1994, Associate Ombudsman Investigator (AOI) Joaquin S. Bumanlag set

the fact-finding investigation of the matter on October 11, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. He also
issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Chief of the BIR Personnel Division (Annex "4").

On December 1, 1994, AOI Bumanglag concluded his fact-finding investigation with a

Report finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Article 171(4) of the
Revised Penal Code. AOI Bumanglag recommended a preliminary investigation (Annex
"5") to be conducted on the case, and at the same time, he executed under oath the
corresponding affidavit-complaint against petitioner (Annex "6").

On December 19, 1994, Ombudsman Investigator (OI) Rainier C. Almazan, acting on the
said affidavit-complaint, directed petitioner to submit her counter-affidavit (Annex "7").

On January 13, 1995, petitioner submitted her counter-affidavit with annexes alleging that
she passed the CPA licensure examinations with a grade of 75.42% (Annex "8").
On January 31, 1995, PRC Records Section Chief Leandro O. Ordenes, issued a
Certification, stating that petitioner failed in the CPA licensure examinations (Annex "9").

On February 27, 1995, OI Almazan issued a Resolution, finding ". . . sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that the crimes of falsification of public documents . . .
have been committed . . ." (Petition, Annex "F").

Under a 1st Indorsement of even date, Deputy Ombudsman for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) Manuel B. Casaclang deputized respondent City Prosecutor of Manila
Jesus Guerrero to file the corresponding charges against petitioner and to handle the
prosecution of the cases (Annex "10").

On April 11, 1995, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila docketed the case as IS No.
95-D-12930 and herein respondent Nestor Gonzales, Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila,
set it for another round of preliminary investigation on May 5 and 12, 1995 (Annex "11").

While the preliminary investigation was ongoing before the City Prosecutor, petitioner filed
a motion to reset preliminary investigation (Annexes "11 -A" and "12"), Motion to Issue
Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Leandro Ordenes [OIC, Records Section] and
Ernesto Jaurique [Exec. Director] (Petition, Annex "G"); and a Comment/Manifestation
stating, among others, that "another round of preliminary investigation should be
conducted by the City Prosecutor." Why petitioner should demand another round of
preliminary investigation while one was already on-going is not clear on record.

At any rate, the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Prosecutor yielded
additional evidence of falsification against petitioner, to wit: Ordenes' Certification (Annex
"9"), and the Table of Results-Failed, CPA Licensure Exams (Annex "1"), both submitted
by the PRC showing that petitioner did flunk the CPA Licensure Exam of May, 1993.

On June 21, 1995, respondent City Prosecutor issued the questioned Resolution, ". . . .
finding sufficient ground to hold petitioner for trial" and ordering the filing of the Information
in court (Pet., Annex "I").

On July 17, 1995, three (3) Informations for falsification of public documents were filed
against petitioner docketed as Criminal Cases No. 95-143922-24. The cases were raffled
off to the sala of respondent Judge Marino M. dela Cruz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22,
Manila (Annex "13-A"-"13-C").

On July 25, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion to Reduce Bail Bond (Annex "14").

But even before respondent judge could act on his motion to reduce bail bond, petitioner
filed the instant petition.

Thereafter, petitioner posted her cash bond with "Waiver" viz:

"Pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 40 dated November 10, 1972, issued by the
President of the Philippines, following annotation is hereby incorporated in the CASH
BOND posted for the account in the above-entitled cases.

The herein accused hereby agreed that in case she jumps bail or fails to appear for
trial/arraignment despite due notice to her counsel, her right to be present is deemed
waived, which failure shall to all intents and purposes authorize the Court to proceed with
the hearing as if she were personally present." 1

Petitioner has not shown that her case falls within any of the recognized exceptions. Perforce,
her prayer for injunction to restrain the criminal actions against her must be denied.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

REFhttps://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/gr_121017_1997.html