SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 8336. September 6, 2017.]

RICARDO TINDOY and ELEUTERIA TINDOY , complainants, vs. ATTYS.

JESUS A. TANTAY, ALJAY O. GO, and ARNEL D. REMPILLO ,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06
September 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8336: RICARDO TINDOY and ELEUTERIA TINDOY, Complainants, v.
ATTYS. JESUS A. TANTAY, ALJAY O. GO, and ARNEL D. REMPILLO,
Respondents.
Before the Court is an administrative complaint led by Ricardo Tindoy and
Eleuteria Tindoy (Spouses Tindoy) against respondents Atty. Jesus A. Tantay (Tantay),
Atty. Aljay O. Go (Go), and Atty. Arnel D. Rempillo (Rempillo) for gross professional
neglect.
The present administrative case stemmed from a civil case 1 led against
Spouses Tindoy for Annulment of Sale before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan
del Norte and Butuan City. For their defense, Spouses Tindoy sought legal assistance
from the Regional Public Attorney's O ce (PAO) and Tantay was assigned by the PAO
as Spouses Tindoy's counsel de officio.
In a Joint-A davit Complaint dated 20 November 2008, 2 Spouses Tindoy
alleged that in a scheduled pre-trial conference of the civil case on 4 November 2002,
Tantay failed to appear and submit a pre-trial brief three days prior to the pre-trial
conference. During the re-scheduled pre-trial conference on 16 December 2002, Tantay
again failed to appear and submit a pre-trial brief. The RTC then issued an Order 3
resetting the pre-trial conference to 24 February 2003 and directed Spouses Tindoy's
counsel to le the pre-trial brief three days before the pre-trial conference. On 24
February 2003, Tantay once again failed to appear in the pre-trial conference and
submit a pre-trial brief in the civil case. The RTC in an Order 4 on the same day declared
Spouses Tindoy in default. Spouses Tindoy claimed that instead of ling a motion for
reconsideration, Tantay led a Motion for Withdrawal of Representation 5 on 3 March
2003 which the RTC granted on 10 April 2003. 6
Spouses Tindoy alleged that after Tantay withdrew as their counsel, PAO
Regional Director Atty. Lou Nueva assigned Go, another PAO lawyer, to handle Spouses
Tindoy's civil case. Go led Motions to Lift the Order of Default and to Admit Pre-Trial
Brief with Appearance 7 with the RTC. In an Order 8 dated 7 June 2004, the RTC denied
the motion to lift order of default. According to Spouses Tindoy, at rst they were not
advised by Go that their motion was denied by the RTC. 9 It was only when they went to
the RTC to get a copy of the Order that Spouses Tindoy learned that their motion was
denied by the RTC. Upon realizing that their motion was denied, Spouses Tindoy asked
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Go for advice and Go prepared a Petition for Relief from Judgment (Petition for Relief).
Go refused to sign the Petition for Relief he prepared, and which was instead signed by
Rempillo, another PAO lawyer. The Petition for Relief was denied by the RTC on 6 June
2006. 1 0 Thereafter, Spouses Tindoy claimed that both Go and Rempillo refused to
handle Spouses Tindoy's civil case and instead advised Spouses Tindoy to approach
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) President for assistance. Spouses Tindoy's
Petition for Annulment of Judgment was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals on 18
September 2007. 1 1 Spouses Tindoy alleged that due to the gross professional neglect
on the part of PAO lawyers Tantay, Go, and Rempillo, they lost the civil case and were
left with no other legal remedy.
In an Amended/Veri ed Comment 1 2 dated 9 November 2009, Tantay denied the
allegations in the complaint. Tantay contended that he met Spouses Tindoy only after
their Answer in the civil case had already been led. Since the PAO o ce was about to
close during his meeting with Spouses Tindoy, Tantay advised Spouses Tindoy to
return another day for their interview. Tantay alleged that Spouses Tindoy never
returned to the PAO o ce for their interview. Tantay contended that he was not
appraised of the facts of their pending civil case and was neither given the documents
pertaining to the civil case. Tantay also alleged that during the two scheduled pre-trial
conferences of Spouses Tindoy's civil case, he was on paternity leave and brought his
child to the hospital due to an emergency. Tantay claimed that the civil case was
dismissed due to the fault of Spouses Tindoy since they did not follow up with the PAO
office. 1 3
In a Comment 1 4 dated 15 October 2009, Go claimed that he took over as PAO
counsel for Spouses Tindoy's civil case after the Spouses Tindoy were already declared
in default by the RTC. Go contended that he appeared for Spouses Tindoy in the civil
case and led Motions to Lift the Order of Default and to Admit Pre-Trial Brief with
Appearance as evidenced by an Order 1 5 dated 4 August 2003 issued by the RTC. Go
also appeared on behalf of Spouses Tindoy on 8 October 2003 1 6 in a hearing to set
aside the order of default. 1 7 Go claimed he even led on 29 November 2005 an
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Execution 1 8 on behalf of Spouses Tindoy.
Go contended that he prepared a Petition for Relief for Spouses Tindoy but could no
longer sign because he was reassigned by the PAO to handle PAO cases in RTC, Branch
33 in Butuan City and that PAO regulations prohibited him from doing so. Go contended
that he exercised his utmost and best efforts to defend Spouses Tindoy's interests in
their civil case.
In a Comment 1 9 dated 5 October 2009, Rempillo denied the allegations in the
complaint and contended that there was no showing that he failed to act properly in the
performance of his duty as the PAO lawyer assigned to handle Spouses Tindoy's civil
case. Rempillo alleged that he took over as counsel for Spouses Tindoy in the year
2006 after Tantay withdrew as Spouses Tindoy's counsel and after substituting Go,
another PAO lawyer who handled Spouses Tindoy's civil case. Rempillo contended that
the PAO appointed him as counsel for Spouses Tindoy only after a reassignment of
PAO lawyers and that the judgment in Spouses Tindoy's civil case was already nal and
executory during his appointment. Rempillo alleged that he signed and led the Petition
for Relief drafted by Go because Go could not sign due to Go's reassignment by the
PAO to handle cases in a different RTC branch.
On 27 January 2010, this Court, through the Second Division, referred the
administrative case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. 2 0
In a Report and Recommendation 2 1 dated 16 March 2011, IBP Commissioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Acerey C. Pacheco (Commissioner Pacheco) recommended that Tantay be found guilty
of gross professional neglect and that the administrative complaint against Go and
Rempillo be dismissed for lack of merit.
The dispositive portion of the Report and Recommendation states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that
Atty. Jesus A. Tantay be found GUILTY of gross professional neglect and be
meted the penalty of ne in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
As for respondents Attys. Aljay O. Go and Arnel D. Rempillo, it is recommended
that the complaints against them be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. 2 2
In Resolution No. XX-2013-115 2 3 passed on 28 September 2013, the IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved with modi cation Commissioner Pacheco's
Report and Recommendation. The IBP Board of Governors suspended Tantay from the
practice of law for three months for being guilty of gross negligence and dismissed the
administrative complaint against Go and Rempillo.
Resolution No. XX-2013-115 states:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modi cation, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution as Annex "A", and nding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and
considering that the complaint against Atty. Aljay O. Go and Atty. Arnel D.
Rempillo lacks merit, the case is hereby DISMISSED. However, considering that
Respondent Atty. Jesus A. Tantay is guilty of gross negligence, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.
On 10 February 2014, Tantay led a Motion for Reconsideration 2 4 which was
granted by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XXI-2014-278 2 5 dated 3 May
2014.
Resolution No. XXI-2014-278 states:
RESOLVED to GRANT Respondent Atty. Jesus Tantay's Motion for
Reconsideration, considering that the PAO Administrative Case was dismissed.
Thus, as regards Atty. Tantay[,] Resolution No. XX-2013-115 dated 28
September 2013 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Nonetheless, the Board
RESOLVED to sternly WARN him to be circumspect in his dealings. With respect
to Atty. Aljay Go and Atty. Arnel Rempillo, the dismissal of the case under said
Resolution stands. 2 6
The Court disagrees with the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors. The IBP has no jurisdiction over the present administrative complaint. The
administrative complaint must be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Republic Act No. 6770 2 7 (RA 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act
of 1989," states the jurisdiction of the O ce of the Ombudsman. Section 15, paragraph
1 of RA 6770 provides:
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The O ce of the Ombudsman
shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any public o cer or employee,
o ce or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or ine cient. It has primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such
cases.
The 1987 Constitution clothes the O ce of the Ombudsman with the administrative
disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any
government o cial when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper,
or ine cient. 2 8 The O ce of the Ombudsman is the government agency responsible
for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government o cials "in every
case where the evidence warrants in order to promote e cient service by the
Government to the people." 2 9 In Samson v. Restrivera , 3 0 this Court ruled that the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance,
and non-feasance committed by any public o cer or employee during his or her tenure.
I n Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales , 3 1 this Court held that the IBP has no
jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses
involving their o cial duties. 3 2 Likewise, in Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay , 3 3 this Court held
that lawyers in government service exercising governmental functions or duties belong
to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the O ce of the Ombudsman.
Consequently, acts or omissions of lawyers in government service relating to the
performance of their functions as government employees or o cials are not within the
jurisdiction of the IBP but within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the O ce
of the Ombudsman. 3 4
Spouses Tindoy's complaint alleges: (1) the PAO counsel's failure to appear in
the pre-trial conference; (2) the PAO counsel's failure to submit a pre-trial brief; and (3)
the failure of the PAO lawyers to perform their duties and serve the best interests of
their client. Spouses Tindoy's complaint contains allegations of acts or omissions
connected with respondents' duties as government lawyers exercising government
functions in the PAO; and thus, respondents are within the administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction of their supervisor 3 5 or the Office of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE , the administrative complaint against Atty. Jesus A. Tantay, Atty.
Aljay O. Go, and Atty. Arnel D. Rempillo is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the O ce of the Ombudsman for
whatever appropriate action the Ombudsman may wish to take with respect to the
possible administrative and criminal liability of respondents Atty. Jesus A. Tantay, Atty.
Aljay O. Go, and Atty. Arnel D. Rempillo.
SO ORDERED. "
Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes

1. Civil Case No. 5161.

2. Rollo, pp. 2-4.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Id. at 63.
4. Id. at 64.
5. Id. at 16.

6. Id. at 3.
7. Id. at 18-19.

8. Id. at 22.
9. Id. at 3.

10. Id. at 26.

11. Id. at 37-39.
12. Id. at 176-180.

13. Id. at 201.

14. Id. at 154-164.

15. Id. at 165.

16. Id. at 166.

17. Id. at 157.

18. Id. at 167-168.
19. Id. at 99-105.

20. Id. at 229.

21. Id. at 468-474.

22. Id. at 474.

23. Id. at 467.

24. Id. at 475-512.

25. Id. at 582-583.
26. Id. at 582.

27. "An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the Office of the
Ombudsman, and for Other Purposes."

28. Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 13, par. (1).

29. Section 13, RA 6770.

30. 662 Phil. 45 (2011).

31. A.C. No. 8168, 12 October 2016.
32. Id.

33. A.C. No. 7478, 11 January 2017.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 34. Id.

35. Executive Order No. 292 or "Administrative Code of 1987," Section 47. Disciplinary
Jurisdiction. — (1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than
thirty days, or ne in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary
or transfer, removal or dismissal from o ce. A complaint may be led directly with the
Commission by a private citizen against a government o cial or employee in which
case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or
o cial or group of o cials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation
shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken.
    (2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and
municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against o cers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their
decisions shall be nal in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than
thirty days or ne in an amount not exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the decision
rendered by a bureau or o ce head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be
initially appealed to the department and nally to the Commission and pending appeal,
the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same
shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com