Yuseco v.

Bernad
AM No. 94-1-061-SC
Facts:
1) After Atty. Grecias disbarment, he sought the service of Atty. Yuseco to file complaints
against Court Administrator Bernad. He alleged, suppressing of facts and making falsoe
statement.
2) After disbarment, Grecia file a motion for investigation and recon which was denied. He
later asked for recon.
3) He also moved for the reconsideration of resolution in 1993 which denied his petition to
extend his chance to file a recon. But it was denied by the court and emphasized the the
case is already final.
4) They then filed a a complaint for falsification by a public officer and violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the Office of the Omudsman. But it was denied.
ISUUE and HOLDINGS:
1) Bernad submitted reports to the Court without furnishing Gercia of the report.
Court: It is not the duty of Bernad to submit to Gercia a copy of the report. He is only
entitled to receive the judgment, not the report.
2) Falsification of facts
Court: Grecia cited 14 instances alleging false statement, but these are the same as the
submission made in the motion for recon which was denied by the court.
Court: Yes, the court based its decision on the report of Judge Bernad but the Court
assumes full responsibility of the rendered judgement.
3) Bernad did not reveal his relationship with one of the counsel of the complainant in the
disbarment case.
Court: Yes, Bernad is close to Atty Nolasco, counsel for the other party in the disbarment
case but he does not influence or beholden the former.
What complainants charge as suppressions in the report are in reality omissions of
facts which in the exercise of sound judgment were found to be immaterial.
Complainants confuse appreciation of evidence with suppression of facts.