THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 8324. July 10, 2019.]

[Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4764]

JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN , complainant, vs. PROSECUTORS

ERNESTO C. MENDOZA, JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG AND ELNORA
LARGO NOMBRADO , respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July
10, 2019 , which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8324 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4764] (Judge Medel Arnaldo
B. Belen v. Prosecutors Ernesto C. Mendoza, Josef Albert T. Comilang and
Elnora Largo Nombrado) . — For resolution is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment led by
(Ret.) Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen against respondents Prosecutors Ernesto C.
Mendoza, Josef Albert T. Comilang and Elnora Largo Nombrado, for gross ignorance of
the law, violations of the lawyer's oath and legal ethics, for failure to assess and collect
official fees in the notarization of documents. HTcADC

The Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, Ma.

Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate, dated April 7, 2017, are as follows:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 22, 2009, complainant Judge Medel Arnaldo Belen led with the
Supreme Court a disbarment complaint against the respondents for Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Violations of Laws and Lawyer's Oath for:
1) failure to assess and collect the fees for notarization or
administration of oath as mandated by Department of Justice Circular
No. 42 Series of 2004 ; and
2) falsely claimed and asserted that the said fees were assessed
and collected in their veri ed answer led in Administrative Case No.
7784 .
The complainant enumerated in his complaint the documents
purportedly notarized by the respondents but failed to attach the same in the
complaint. The respondents led a Motion for Bill of Particulars asking the
Supreme Court to require the complainant to furnish them a copy of the
documents purportedly notarized by them but the complainant was not able to
produce the same due to his separation from the judiciary [and] he can no
longer have access to the records of Regional Trial Court[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba
City. Finding the said reason not fully satisfactory, the complainant was
required to secure copies of the document[s] mentioned in the complaint from
the RTC of Calamba City and submit the same to the Court.
However, in his undated letter to the Supreme Court received on February
4, 2014, the complainant informed the Court that he was advised by RTC Branch
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 36 of Calamba City that the records of the said complaint cannot be located[,]
therefore[,] no copies of the documents mentioned in the complaint can be
found, without any o cial certi cation from the RTC[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba
City.
The respondents were required to [ le] their Comment and asserted that
the complaint led against them is a mere harassment suit; that their
Constitutional rights have been violated for failure of the complainant to provide
them the documents allegedly notarized in violation of DOJ Circular No. 42
Series of 2004; that the complainant failed to apprise of the nature and cause of
accusations against them; that they administered oath as part of their functions
being o cers authorized to administer oath and that administration of oath,
even without collection of fees is a public function. The respondents also stated
that they never asserted that fees were assessed and collected from the alleged
document is A.C. No. 7784. Lastly, granting that the respondents administered
oath without assessing and collecting fees, the complaint should ail (sic) since
the complainant failed to produce them. CAIHTE

When the case was referred to this Commission, a mandatory conference

was conducted and only the respondents appeared. The Commission issued an
Order for the submission of the respective Position Papers. However, the
respondents did not file their Position Papers. Hence, this Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Violations of Laws and Lawyer's
Oath by reason of their failure to assess and collect
notarial fees when they administer oath on several
documents contained in the complaint.
RULING
The case should be DISMISSED.
The complainant was not able to substantiate the allegations in his
complaint, he failed to [attach] to his complaint the alleged documents
purportedly notarized by the respondents. The sincerity of the complaint is
doubtful. Likewise, the reasons of the complainant for his failure to produce the
alleged notarized documents and how he communicated with the High Court is
even unbecoming of a lawyer not [to] mention that he was a Judge of a
Regional Trial Court. The reason of the complainant for not being able to
produce the documents was not even supported by a certi cation from the
RTC[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba City[,] that the said documents cannot be located. It
only vouched the fact that there is no document at all to support the complaint
for disbarment against the respondents.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof. Indeed, considering the serious consequences of the
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Supreme Court has
consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty.
The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study.
It is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney
may be able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family,
besides the honor and prestige that accompany his o ce and profession. To
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 deprive him of such honored station in life which would result in irreparable
injury must require proof of the highest degree, which we find nowhere here.
aScITE

Considering the foregoing, it is recommended to dismiss the charges

against respondents inasmuch as such charges cannot be proven without the
evidence of the complainant and his witnesses.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the [I]nvestigating Commissioner
recommends the DISMISSAL of the administrative complaint against
PROSECUTORS ERNESTO MENDOZA, JOSEF ALBERT COMILANG, ELNORA
LARGO NOMBRADO, the same being an obvious harassment complaint not
supported by evidence.
Respectfully submitted. 2
In Resolution 3 dated November 28, 2017, the Board of Governors of the IBP
resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and, likewise, dismiss the complaint.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , nding the recommendation of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable
laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Prosecutors Ernesto
Mendoza, Josef Albert Comilang and Elnora Largo Nombrado, and consider the same
as CLOSED and TERMINATED .
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-2.

2. Id. at 82-85. (Emphasis in the original)

3. Id. at 80-81.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com