REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 14 October 2020 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12674 (Leonardo G. Puno v. Atty. John Nathaniel I.

Marasigan). - For the Court's resolution is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated
March 10, 2014 filed by Leonardo G. Puno (complainant) charging Atty.
John Nathaniel I. Marasigan (respondent) with violation of the Rules of
Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 2

The Antecedents

The case stemmed from several criminal cases filed by

complainant against Joel R. Umandap (Umandap) at the Davao City
Prosecutors Office. On October 8, 2007, the corresponding Informations
were filed at the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), 11 th Judicial
Region, Branch 4, Davao City docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 129, 148-
D-07 to 129, 150-D-07 for violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD)
18293 and Case No. 129-151-D-07 for Perjury. 4 Respondent was a
counsel of Umandap. 5

On August 13, 2008, during the second scheduled arraignment of

Umandap, respondent manifested in open court that he filed an U rgent
~v:lotion for Reinvestigation before the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP), Davao City on the ground that Umandap was deprived of the
opportunity to fi]e his counter-affidavit. The M.TCC granted the motion
and referred the records of the cases back to OCP, Davao City. 6 Despite
1
Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2 Id. at 3
Penalizing Obstruction o,/Apprehension and Prcsecution Of Criminal Uffenders.
4 Roilo, p. 2.
Id.
6 Id. at 5; penned by Acting Pre~iding. Judge: Carfe lita B. Cadiente-Flores.

A(163)URES - more -

1,d1t
Resolution 2 A.C. No. 12674
October 14, 2020

the lapse of time from August 13, 2008 to February 10, 2009, respondent
did not submit any counter-affidavit. Thus, the OCP, Davao City
rendered a Resolution on Reinvestigation7 dated February 10, 2009
recommending that Umandap be arraigned and trial proceed on the
merits. Acting on the Resolution, 8 the MTCC issued an Order to arraign
Umandap on June 16, 2009 which is for the third time. 9

Six days before the scheduled anaignment, respondent filed an

Omnibus Motion [Motion to Quash and Motion to Refer to Another
Investigating Prosecutor]1° stating, among others, that the complaints
should be quashed on the ground that "the facts charged do not constitute
an offense for lack of probable cause." 11

The events prompted complainant to file the present complaint

alleging as follows:

First, respondent falsely quoted Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the

Rules of Court by adding the phrase "for lack of probable cause" under
paragraph 1.a. of his Omnibus Motion, viz.:

1. The criminal complaints should be quashed on the ground

that:

a. The facts charged do not constitute an offense for lack of

probable cause. 12 (Emphasis supplied.)

Second, in order to justify his claim that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, respondent cited a Resolution 13 dated November 5,
2007 issued by the Ombudsman in O:MB-M-C-05-0427-I entitled
"Leonardo G. Puna vs. Glenn A. Olandria, et al." and alleged that before
the instant criminal cases had been filed against Umandap, complainant
had already filed several Ombudsman cases against Engineer Zoila
Gudin (Engr. Gudin) and Glem1 Olandria, all public officers of the LGU
of Panabo City with the Ombudsman; and that neither one of them was
ever indicted for lack of sufficient evidence. 14

Paragraph 4 of the Omnibus Motion 15 reads:

7 Id. at 6-7.
s Id.
9
Id. at 2.
10 ld.at8-I 0.
II Id.
12 Id.
13 /d.atll-13.
14 Id.
is Id.

A(163)URES - more -

/(fly/
 --·

Resolution 3 A.C. No. 12674

October 14, 2020

4. The actual facts fl owing from these Ombudsman cases are

exactl y [the] same actual facts in these instant criminal cases. The
only exception is that in the former the accused is merely the witness
for these public officers as against the private complainant while in
the latter he is now the accused, singling him out for revenge as the
public officer ·were never indicted at all for lack of sufficient
evidence. 16 (Emphasis supplied)

Complainant maintained that respondent twisted the text of the

subject Resolutic,n 17 when he stated that no public officer was ever
indicted on the criminal complaint considering that Engr. Gudin was
criminally charged with violation of Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No.
(RA) 6713. 18

Third, in a Motion for Reconsideration 19 dated August 23 , 2011

filed at the OCP, Davao City, respondent again twisted the text of the
Ombudsman Resolution20 in this wise:

5. The actual facts flowing from these Ombudsman cases are

exactly same actual facts in these instant criminal cases. The only
exception in that in the former the accused is merely the witness fo r
these public officers as against the private complainant while in the
latter he is now the accused, singling him out for revenge as public
officer were never [indicted] at all for lack ofsiifjicient evidence. " 21

X XX X.

7. Needies[s] to state, the same fi ndings of facts were adopted in

toto by the Honorable Ombudsman in the above-mentioned
administrative cases against the said public officers. Only Mr. Gudin
got a mere slapped (sic) on the wrist, while Mr. Olandria was
exonerated.22 (Emphasis supplied)

In his An·s wer,23 respondent denied the charges against him. He

asserted that he did not deliberately misrepresent the text of the subject
Ombudsman Resolution24 before the OCP and the MTCC.25

16 Id. at 10.
17 Id. at 11 -13.
18 Id. at 3.
19 Id. at 14- 16.
20 / d. at 11-1 3.
21 /d. at l O.
22 Id. at 15 .
23 Id. at 2 1-39.
24 /d.atll -13.
25 Id. at 244.

A(l63)URES - more -

(11(~
 -

Resolution 4 A.C. No. -12674

October 14, 2020

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating

Conunissioner recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of
suspension for three (3) months from the practice of law for violation of
Rule 10.02 and Rule 10.03 , Canon 10 of the CPR.26 The IBP
Investigating Commissioner pointed out that respondent cannot easily
declare that he did not deliberately or knowingly intend to twist,
misrepresent, or misquote the text of the Ombudsman Resolution27
considering that the improper citation was done in two separate
pleadings. 28

Nonetheless, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that

respondent did not violate Section 3 (c), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
when he failed to submit Umandap's counter-affidavit before the OCP,
Davao City considering that the MTCC, in a Resolution29 dated
September 15, 2009, appreciated respondent's reason for not filing it. 30

On February 22, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors issued a

Resolution31 adopting the IBP Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation, to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT the fiedings of fact and

recommendation of the Investigating Conunissioner to impose upon
the Respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law
for tlu·ee (3) months. 32 (Emphasis omitted).

Respondent moved for reconsideration,33 but the IBP Board of

Governors denied it in a Resolution34 dated December 6, 2018.

Issue Before the Court

Whether respondent is administratively liable for violation of

Rules 10.02 and 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR.

26 Id. at 246.
27 Id. at 11-1 3.
2s Id.
29 Id. at 64-65.
30 Id. at 245.
31
Id. at 242.
32 Id
33 Id. at 248-253.
34 Id. at 271.

A(l63)URES - more -

I,, f)'r
 --

Resolution 5 A.C. No. 12674

October 14, 2020

Our Ruling

The Court adopts the findings and reco1mnendation of the IBP

Board of Governors.

As correctly found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent

knowingly misrepresented the text of the Ombudsman's Resolution35
dated November 5, 2007 in OMB-M-C-05-0427-I on two occasions:
first, when he stated under paragraph 4 of his Omnibus Motion36 that no
public officer was indicted in the criminal complaint, when in truth,
Engr. Gudin was criminally charged with violation of Section 7 (d) of
RA 6713; and second, when he reiterated the same misrepresentation in
his Motion for Reconsideration dated August 23, 2011 .

The dispositive portion of the Ombudsman Resolution 37 dated

November 5, 2007 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds and so

holds that there exists probable cause to warrant the indictment of
respondent ZOILO C. GUDIN, JR. for violation of Section 7 (d) of
RA 6713. Let. the enclosed Infom1ation be filed in Court.x x x x. 38

In insisting that neither one of the public officers charged in the

Ombudsman cases was indicted for lack of sufficient evidence,
respondent knowingly misquoted and misrepresented the contents of a
resolution or authority.

Worse, respondent in his Motion for Reconsideration39 added that

Engr. Gudin got a mere slap on the wrist as penalty. However, in an
Order40 dated April 21, 2009, the Ombudsman meted out Engr. Gudin a
penalty of a fine equivalent to his six months salary, to wit: 4 1

WHEREFORE, premises considered respondent Gudin's

Motion seeking a reversal of the assailed Decision finding him guilty
of violating Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 is hereby
DENIED. Nonetheless, the imposition of the penalty of a fine
equivalent to one (1) year salary of respondent Gudin is hereby
MODIFIED to a fine equivalent to six (6) months sal ary in

,s Id. at 11 - 13.
36 Id. at 8- 10.
~1 Id. at 11 - I 3.
38 Id. at 12- 13.
39 Id. at 14- 16
40 Id. at 17- 19.
41
Id. at 18.

A(l63)URES - more -

(11 ('r
 -

Resolution 6 A.C. No. 12674

October 14, 2020
accordance with Section 56 (e) of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.xx x x.42

Evidently, the penalty imposed is not a mere slap on the wrist of

E_ngr. Gudin.

Respondent's actuation is indubitably a violation of Canon l O of

the CPR which mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and
good faith to the Court. In particular, respondent violated Rule 10.02 and
Rule 10.03 of the CPR which provide as follows:

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or

misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and

shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Section 20 (d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a

lawyer must employ such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by any
artifice or false statement of fact or law. Undoubtedly, respondent did not
employ means which are consistent with t:-uth and honor when he
misquoted Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court and twi sted
the text of the Ombudsman Resolution before the OCP, Davao City and
theMTCC.

As jurisprudence elucidates, lawyers have an obligation to the

court as well as to the opposing party to make only truthful statements in
their pleadings.43 The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if
1t could not take at face value what is asse1ied by counsel. The time that
will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations
submitted could easily be imagined. 44

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. John Nathaniel I. Marasigan is

found GUILTY of violating Section 20 (d), Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court and Rule 10.02 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for THREE
(3) MONTHS from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this
Resolution. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
42 Id.
43
Atty. Asa v. Atty. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9, 2~('2006).
44 Id.

A(163)URES - more -

/r,l-,f
 ,--

Resolution 7 A.C. No. 12674

October 14, 2020

Atty. John Nathaniel I. Marasigan is DIRECTED to report the

date of his receipt of this Resolution within (5) days from notice, to
enable this Com1 to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar

Confidant to be appended to the personal record of Atty. John Nathaniel
I. Marasigan as a member of the Bar; tr..e Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, for distribution to all its chapters; and the O_ffice of the
Court Administrator, for circulation to all com1s in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave.)

UINOTUAZON
lerk of Court UM;'
7 NOV 2020 11j11

LEONARDO G. PUNO (reg)

Complainant
No. 2064 Hadrian Street, Balibago PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
Angeles City, Pampanga LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. I 2-7-SC)
ATTY. JOHN NATHANIEL L. MARASIGAN (reg)
Respondent OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
2nd Floor, Door no. 3, (BETTER COMPONENTS) OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
DDTC Building, Juan dela Cruz St. Supreme Court, Manila
8000 Davao City
*HON. JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (x)
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (reg) Office of the Court Administrator
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue Supreme Court, Manila
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City
*Note: For Circularization to all Courts.
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT (x) Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
Supreme Court, Manila AC12674. 10/ 14/2020A(l63)URES

A(l63)URES