A.C. No. 12701 (C.B.D. 12-3626) - FRANCISCO PAGDANGANAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO C. PLATA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. In the meantime, respondent should be suspended while investigation and hearing are conducted and likewise, respondent be restrained from visiting in the house of complainant for the former's possibility of threat against the latter. [16] In his Answer [17] and Position Paper, [18] Atty. Plata averred that the disbarment case filed by Pagdanganan "is absolutely a nuisance suit devoid of any merit that is cleverly designed to harass a reputable member of the legal profession." [19] Furthermore, Atty. Plata justified the amount of damages prayed for, stating that the damages are "a necessary consequence for tarnishing [his] good name and reputation." [20] Lastly, Atty. Plata emphasized his intent to file, commence and/or institute another perjury case with damages, et al. , against Pagdanganan. [21] The Report and Recommendation of the IBP CBD In his Report and Recommendation [22] dated February 5, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles (Commissioner Robles) of the CBD recommended that Atty. Plata be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. The Report and Recommendation reads in part: The respondent, although already confronted with the dilemma of having unjustifiably criminally sued Francisco Pagdanganan for Perjury with Damages [even as Pagdanganan did not sign the supposedly untruthful Sinumpaang Salaysay], did not express remorse. The respondent even went ahead to find/offer silly excuses for having sued Francisco Pagdanganan as well. Arrogance in the face of a lost cause is what it is. There is some point in herein complainant's thesis that the respondent meant to intimidate him (complainant). It is bothersome that the respondent did not retreat from his mistaken legal position of suing for perjury with damages one who did not sign the allegedly-offending Sinumpaang Salaysay. It is more bothersome that the respondent would even justify his cruel legal position by indicating in the Answer that he filed in this administrative case that he was expressly reserving "that he will institute, commence and file another perjury case with damages, et al. against herein complainant, Francisco Pagdanganan." There is no question here that the respondent is guilty of misconduct. He abused his prerogatives as a lawyer to intimidate those who displease him. He ill-treats the lowly. UPON THE FOREGOING, it is recommended that the respondent Atty. Romeo C. Plata be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. [23] The Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) On February 22, 2018, the BOG of the IBP passed a Resolution [24] adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD. On June 17, 2019, the BOG passed another Resolution, [25] denying Atty. Plata's Motion for Reconsideration, "there being no new reasons or arguments adduced to justify the reversal of the previous