56 Diaz v. Mandagan, A.C. No.

12669, June 28, 2021

Facts:

Atty. Mandagan alleged the following: Mr. Diaz, as the former Mayor of the City of Ilagan, Isabela,
approved the resolution of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the construction, rehabilitation, and repair
of the barangay health center at Brgy. Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela. The construction caused her
inconvenience and violated her property rights as its structures encroached upon her property without
her consent

Atty. Mandagan further alleged that Mr. Diaz pocketed the funds intended for the purchase of property
where the barangay hall and health center should be constructed; and that aside from violating her
property rights, Mr. Diaz and the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod committed irregularities in
the construction of the project by misappropriating public funds and by giving unwarranted benefits to
SMT Construction.6

In his defense, Mr. Diaz averred that the land upon which the questioned barangay health center was
constructed is a public land as it is part of the old municipal road as certified by the City Assessor of
Ilagan, Isabela.7 Mr. Diaz denied having any involvement in the construction and rehabilitation of the
barangay health center and explained that the project was an undertaking of the Department of Health
(DOH), not by the City of Ilagan, Isabela

In the Joint Resolution9 dated June 4, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed Atty. Mandagan's complaint for
lack of merit. It held that since the case is about the encroachment or the questioned barangay health
center in the portion of her purported property, Atty. Mandagan should have just filed the appropriate
civil case against the alleged intruder instead of initiating meritless action against Mr. Diaz and the
members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

As a consequence thereof, Mr. Diaz filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) the instant
administrative case against Atty. Mandagan on December 21, 2015, arguing that she violated Section
27,11 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Issue: Whether Atty. Mandagan violated the CPR when she filed before the Ombudsman her
unsubstantiated and meritless complaint against Mr. Diaz.

Ruling:

Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and for legal processes. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 —
A lawyer shall not do my falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
In the case at bar, the structures of the questioned barangay health center were erected in the property
declared in the name of the Government of Ilagan, Isabela, not in the purported property of Atty.
Mandagan. Moreover, the project was indeed an undertaking of the DOH, not by the City of Ilagan,
Isabela. Apparently, the serious accusations hurled by Atty. Mandagan against Mr. Diaz were baseless.
With these groundless averments, it appears that Atty. Mandagan instituted the criminal action against
Mr. Diaz without due and proper investigation of the case and without due regard to his rights. The
Ombudsman, thus, correctly dismissed her complaint for lack of merit.

In filing the meritless Ombudsman complaint against Mr. Diaz, the Court agrees with the IBP that Atty.
Mandagan violated the aforementioned provisions under the CPR.

Further, as a member of the bar, Atty. Mandagan should have employed only such means as are
consistent with laws, legal processes, truth and honor. Owing candor, fairness and good faith to the
court, she should have not prosecuted her patently frivolous and meritless complaint, or instituted a
clearly groundless action before the Ombudsman. Being a member of the bar, Atty. Mandagan should
have known better not to misuse legal processes to defeat the ends of justice. As correctly opined by
both the Ombudsman and the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Mandagan could have merely filed
the appropriate case to remove any encroachment on her purported property. There was no need to
concoct accusations against Mr. Diaz to gain improper advantage over him. Indubitably, Atty. Mandagan
violated the CPR.

Penalty: Suspended for two years and sternly warned.