MERCEDES NAVA vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN P.

SORONGON
A.C. No. 5442, January 26, 2004

Facts:
Complainant Mercedes Nava charged respondent Atty. Sorongon with dishonest conduct
and representing clients with conflicting interest, in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The latter is the complainant’s counsel for so many years and informed her of his
intention to withdraw as her counsel in her two cases due to his health condition and proposed to
be retained as complainant’s counsel for some cases which did not involve too much paper work.
On 1996, the respondent filed his withdrawal as counsel in some of cases of the complainant and
the court granted the same.
The complainant then alleged the respondent that although she continuously paid for the
services of the respondent, Atty. Sorongon represented other clients and filed cases against her on
their behalf. It is noted that the respondent assisted a Francisco Atas in filing complaints against
the complainant before the city prosecutor’s office. Then the complainant sent response letter
expressing her disbelief at the cases he failed against her and reiterated the respondent of his ethical
and moral responsibility as a lawyer. Thereafter, the IBP issued a resolution suspending the
respondent to practice law for one year considering that the respondent is in violation of the
prohibition against representing conflicting interests.

Issue:
Whether or not a formal investigation like in this case is mandatory in complaints for
disbarment

Held:
The held that in complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory
requirement. The Court may dispense with the normal referral to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines if the records are complete and the question raised is simple. Similarly, if no further
factual determination is necessary, the Court may decide the case on the basis of the extensive
pleadings on record.
And that the complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the
Court. If at the beginning, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly
dismisses the case. If, however, the Court regard it necessary that further inquiry should be made,
such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a
referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are
accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when
respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. The court remanded the case to IBP for further
proceedings.