A.C. No. 8219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5708] - OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF CAVITE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court instructed the Prosecutor Velasco to submit the connect and present address of respondent. [8] As Atty. Mas' whereabouts remained unknown, the Court thereafter adjured the Office of the Bar Confidant to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to determine the present location of respondent. [9] In the Compliance/Explanation [10] filed by NBI Director Dante Gierran, he avouched that upon receipt of the directive from the Court, he immediately instructed the Bureau's Deputy Directors for Regional Operations Services (DDROS), Investigative Services (DDInvS), and Intelligence Service to conduct surveillance operations to locate respondent and to check whether he obtained a recent NBI Clearance, to no avail. Atty. Mas provided an inexistent address in his NBI Clearance and witnesses averred that he no longer resided in his Cavite, Muntinlupa, and Olongapo addresses. Due to insufficiency of leads, the NBI found it hard to ascertain respondent's current location. Ensuingly, the administrative case was referred [11] to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation, docketed as CBD Case No. 18-5708. [12] On January 15, 2019, IBP Investigating Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera (Investigating Commissioner) issued his Report and Recommendation, [13] the pertinent portion of which reads: Respondent indeed committed the acts complained or to warrant disbarment. It must be noted that lawyers should obey the law and do no falsehood. They are dutybound to promote respect for the law and legal processes, must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. The acts of respondent in extorting money from the litigants in exchange for a favorable resolution of the case is plain extortion. It is highly deceitful and scandalous in the highest order. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Considering, however, that respondent is serving his disbarment in A.C. No. 8010, there can be no second disbarment to speak of. Hence, whatever penalty the CBD may recommend in this case is now moot and academic. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is recommended that the complaint be DISMISSED for being moot and academic. Respectfully submitted. [14] On November 28, 2020, a Resolution [15] was passed by the IBP Board of Governors, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. CBD-2020-11-14 CBD Case No. 18-5708 (Adm. Case No. 8219) Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Cavite vs. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT in PART as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED in PART the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case insofar as it found respondent liable for deceit, gross misconduct and dishonesty, after finding the report to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification on the recommendation from dismissal fo