EN BANC
A.C. No. 8869 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5382], June 25, 2019
RADIAL GOLDEN MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. MICHAEL M. CABUGOY, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
For resolution is a Complaint1 for disciplinary action dated January 12, 2011 filed by Radial Golden Marine Services Corporation's officers, stockholders and employees, as represented by Eugene R. Avenido, President-Stockholder of Radial, et al. (complainants) against respondent Atty. Michael M. Cabugoy (Atty. Cabugoy) for gross misconduct and ignorance of the law.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Complainants alleged that during the annual general meeting of Radial Golden Marine Services Corporation, Atty. Cabugoy, together with a certain Sheila Masacote and Virgilo Anonuevo, entered into the office premises of Radial Golden Marine Services, and claimed that they are stockholders of Radial. Complainants alleged that Atty. Cabugoy and his group insisted on attending the stockholders' meeting and participate in the election despite not being stockholders of Radial. They further alleged that Atty. Cabugoy ordered that the meeting be stopped, and even declared the proceedings to be illegal, causing disruption of the stockholders' meeting, and thus, prevented the stockholders from deliberating on the dividends and the election of the board of directors of Radial.
In a Resolution2 dated February 7, 2011, the Court required Atty. Cabugoy to comment on the allegations against him.
On August 31, 2011, the Court issued another Resolution3 requiring Atty. Cabugoy to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt, or disciplinary dealt with, for his failure to comply with the Resolution dated February 7, 2011 to file his Comment. Atty. Cabugoy was, likewise, required to comply with the submission of his comment within ten (10) days from notice of the Resolution.
On July 25, 2016, in light of the inability of the Court to determine if the Resolution dated August 31, 2011 was received by Atty. Cabugoy, since the pertinent registry receipt was already disposed for condemnation by the postmaster, Deputy Clerk of Court and the Bar Confidant, Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, recommended that Resolution dated August 31, 2011 be resent to Atty. Cabugoy.4
In a Resolution5 dated September 7, 2016, the Third Division of the Court resolved to resend the Resolution dated August 31, 2011 to Atty. Cabugoy, and directed compliance thereto.
In the Status Report6 dated February 22, 2017, Atty. Amor P. Entila, SC Assistant Chief of Office, Office of the Bar Confidant, manifested that the Court's Resolution dated September 7, 2016 was received by Atty. Cabugoy on November 28, 2016 as per Court's Return Card No. 42136, and the period for Atty. Cabugoy to comply with the Court's directive has already expired on December 8, 2016.
Thus, in a Resolution7 dated March 29, 2017, the Court resolved to deem as waived the filing of comment of Atty. Cabugoy on the complaint for disbarment against him, and referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In compliance, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference8 dated September 15, 2017, which required the parties to appear on October 23, 2017 and submit their respective mandatory conference briefs.
On October 23, 2017, the mandatory conference was conducted, but neither of the parties appeared, nor did they submit their respective mandatory conference briefs. Records indicate that the Notice of Mandatory Conference was not delivered to complainants and was returned to the IBP with the annotation "moved out."
Despite the non-appearance of the parties and non-submission of the pertinent pleadings, the IBP-CBD, being duty-bound to comply with the Court's directive, submitted its report and recommendation based on available records and documents.
In its Report and Recommendation9 dated October 30, 2017, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Cabugoy be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and six (6) months. The IBP-CBD found that despite the failure of the complainants to further substantiate its allegations against Atty. Cabugoy, it still found sufficient evidence to recommend disciplinary action against the latter, more so, considering Atty. Cabugoy's failure to attend the mandatory conference despite notice.
In a Resolution10 dated May 19, 2018, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings of the IBP-CBD with modification to reduce the recommended penalty. Instead of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and six (6) months, it recommended instead to impose the penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) year only and a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) for ignoring the Orders, Processes and Directives of the IBP-CBD.
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.In Ngayan v. Atty. Tugade,13 We ruled that "[a lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court."
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2Id. at 10-11.
3Id. at 13.
4Id. at 14.
5Id. at 16.
6Id. at 17.
7Id. at 19-20.
8Id. at 22.
9Id. at 29-34.
10Id. at 27-28.
11Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, 538 Phil. 501, 511 (2006).
12 See Sebastian v. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211, 224 (2007).
13 271 Phil. 654, 659 (1991).
14 729 Phil. 101 (2014).
15Id. at 108.