~anoibanha~an - sandiganbayan home...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anoiBanha~anQuezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-14-CRM-0011Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 7(b)

par. 2 of R.A. 6713

BERNIE FONDEVILLA YGANAN

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,ChairpersonFERNANDEZ, SJ, J. andTRESPESES,* J.

Promulgated:

~.s,~)-~).

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xr,

Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla stands charged for violation ofSection 7(b )(2) of Republic Act No, 6713 (R.A. No. 6713),1 forengaging in the private practice of law by becoming a founding partnerof Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rondario and Librojo LawOffices, without authority to do so, during his incumbency in theposition of President of the Food Terminal, Incorporated (FTI).

That on June 19, 2003 or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines, and withinthe jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accusedBERNIE G. FONDEVILLA Y GANAN, a high ranking public officer,

* As per Administrative Order No. 0227-2016 dated July 26, 2016; Rule XII, Sec. 3 of the Revised InternalRules of the Sandiganbayan1Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

DECISIONPeople. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

being then the President of Food Terminal (FTI), Incorporated, agovernment-owned and controlled corporation, dig then and there,willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage in the private practice ofhis profession as a lawyer, by becoming a founding partner ofFondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla, Yong [sic], Rondario and LibrojoLaw Offices, a law firm engaged in the private practice of law, despiteno authority to do so and while simultaneously holding the positionas President of FTI, to the damage and prejudice of the governmentand of the public interest.

When arraigned, accused, assisted by counsel, entered a pleaof "Not Guilty" to the offense charged.2

During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated as follows:3

1. Accused Fondevilla is the same person named· in the Informationdocketed as SB-14-CRM-0011.

2. Abcused Fondevilla was appointed as President of the FoodTerminal Incorporated, a government-owned and controlledcorporation, effective 01 December 2002 and served as such upto October 2005.

3. Accused Fondevilla is a lawyer and a founding partner of th~Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young, Rondario & Librojo Law Offices.

The parties agreed that the issue to be resolved is as follows:4

Whether accused Fondevilla, while holding public office asPresident of Food Terminal Incorporated, enga~ed in the privatepractice of law as a partner of the Fondevilla Jasarino FondevillaYoung Rondario & Librojo Law Offices without auth rity to do so inviolation of Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 ', );,/7

'Y'~.

2 pp. 104-105, Record3 p. 183, Record (p. 3, Pre-Trial Order dated June 16, 2015)4/bid.


The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely, Atty.Sheara Lupangco-Tamayo5 and Atty. Ryan Martinez.6

Atty. Sheara Lupangco-Tamayo's testimony was dispensedwith after the parties stipulated as follows: 7

a. Atty. Tamayo is the authorized representative of the CompanyRegistration and Monitoring Department of the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC-CRMD).

b. The SEC-CRMD has custody of the original Articles ofPartriership of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla, Young, Rondarioand Librojo Law Offices (Exhibit "C").

c. Said Articles of Partnership was submitted to the SEC on 7 July2000 and duly recorded in Folio 1386, Leaf No. 69101, InscriptionNo. 20 in the Book of Partnership of the SEC. Said Articles ofPartnership was signed and the seal of the Commission wasaffixed on December 6,2000.

d. The Articles of Partnership was amended on June 19,2003 andthe Amended Articles of Partnership was submitted to the SECon June 20, 2003 (Exhibit "B").

e. The original Amended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla,Jasarjno, Young, Rondario and Librojo Law Offices was dulyrecorded in Folio 78, Leaf No. 69101, Inscription No.3, VolumeNo. 1386 in the Book of Partnership of the SEC. The amendedArticles of Partnership was signed and the seal of theCommission was affixed thereto on June 26, 2003.

f. Both (aforementioned) Articles of Partnership, identified six (6)founding partners, one of whom is accused Bernie G. Fondevilla,whose initial cash contribution amounted to P30·,000.00.

g. The stated purpose in both Articles of Partnership is to engage inthe practice of law through a general professional partnership .

. ~.'",Atty. Ryan Martinez's te timony was dispensed with after theparties stipulated as follows:8

5 TSN,September 16, 2015.6 TSN, September 17, 2015.7 pp. 6-9, TSN, September 16, 2015; pp. 199-200 (Order dated September 16, 2015)8 pp. 4-7, TSN, September 17,2015; pp. 201-202, Record (Order dated September 17, 2015)


a. Atty. Martinez is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs of FoodTerminal, Inc. (FTI), a GOCC without original charter, and asubsidiary of the National Food Authority. He was appointed inAugust 2007.

b. FTI filed with the SEC an Amended Articles of Incorporation onFebruary 27,1985 (Exhibits "0-1" to "0-11").

c. The Office of the Vice President for Corporate Affairs has custodyof the following documents:

1. Employment records of accused Bernie G. Fondevilla(Exhibits "A," "A-1" to "A-11")

2. Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the FoodTerminal, Inc. (Exhibits "0," "0-1" to "0-22")

d. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla was appointed as President of FTIon November 29,2002.

e. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla accomplished a PersonnelInformation Sheet (Exhibit "A-10"), specifying his personalcircumstances such as educational attainment and workexperience, among others.

f. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla served as FTI President fromDecember 1, 2002 up to November 1, 2005 evidenced by thefollowing documents:

1. Service Record (Exhibits "A-4" and "A-5")2. FTI Board Resolutions No. 10-20-05 (Exhibits "A-6" and

"A-7") and 10-21-053. Secretary's Certificate

g. The Job Description Form (Exhibits "A-2" and "A-3") states thatthe responsibilities of accused Fondevilla as President of FTIinclude the provision of overall direction and management of theoperation of FTI to ensure its survival and growth.

h. Under the Amended By-Laws, the corporate officers of FTI arethe President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents andDepartment Managers (Exhibits "0-14" to "0-22").

I. In Lumanta v. NLRC,9 the Supreme Court ruled that the termsand conditions of FTI employees are governed by the Labor Codeand not by the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations.

j. Also in Lumanta, it was held that FTI emPIOye~a~iCers arecovered by the SSS Law and not by the GSIS~ d'/?

9 G.R. No. 82819, February 8, 1989

DECISIONPeopffi. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

This Court resolved to admit all exhibits offered by theprosecution.10

Exhibit DocumentA Letter dated March 3, 2014 of Atty. Ryan A. MartinezA-1 Letter of Appointment dated November 29, 2002 of Bernie

G. FondevillaA-2 and A-3 Job Description of the President and Chief Executive Officer

of FTIA-4 and A-5 Employee Service Records of Bernie G. FondevillaA-6 and A-7 FTI Board Resolution NO.1 0-20-05

A-10 FTI Personnel Information Sheet of Bernie G. FondevillaA-11 Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth

(SALN) of Bernie G. Fondevilla as of December 31,2002B and B-1 Certificate dated June 26, 2003 issued by the SEC and

Cover SheetB-2 to B-12 and Amended Articles of Partnership of the Fondevilla Jasarinoits sub-marking Young Rondario & Librojo Law Offices dated 19 June 2003

(B-11-A)B-13 and B-14 SEC-iRegister and Verification/Reservation Request

B-15 Letter dated June 17, 2003 of Atty. William L. Jasarino,addressed to SEC

B-17 Affidavit of Undertaking to Change Firm Name dated June19, 2003 of Atty. William L. Jasarino

C Certificate dated December 6, 2000 and the correspondingAmended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla JasarinoFondevilla Young Rondario & Librojo Law Offices datedJune 26, 2000

0, 0-1 to 0-22 Amended Articles of Incorporation and Amended By-Lawsof FTI

The accused filed his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer toEvidence.11 However, the Court resolved to deny said Motion.12

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented two (2) witnes:~ameIY, Atty. ZeusLibrojo13 and accused Bernie G. FondeVill:f:~' ~

. i'10 p. 288, Record (Resolution dated October 28,2015)11 Dated November 11,2015; pp. 297-304, Record12 p. 311 Record (Resolution dated November 25,2015)13 TSN, February 11, 2016.14 Tl5N, April 5, 2016.

DECISIONPeopk. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM~0011

a. He was a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young,Rondario and Librojo Law Offices.15

b. Initially, only Atty. William Jasarino and Atty. Eugeryl T. Rondario(Exhibit "2") were the official partners in the law firm because theothers were still completing their obligations with the previous lawfirms they were connected with.16

c. Sometime in 2000, the Articles of Partnership was amended(Exhibit "3") to include Attys. Jim Fondevilla, Bernie Fondevilla,Frederick Young and himself. 17

e. Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary Arthur Yap convincedaccused Bernie Fondevilla to enter government service.Thereafter, the accused advised the law firm that he was enteringgovernment service.19

f. The accused advised the law firm sometime in 2001 or 2002.They were moving offices to 1701 East Tower at the time.2o

g. The Accused was not allotted a room or working space in the newoffice because he already resigned from the firm.21

h. The accused' withdrawal from the firm was formalized by the filingof the Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003 withth'e SEC on June 20, 2003 (Exhibit "4").22

i. The Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003identified accused Fondevilla as one of the founding partners. Healso signed the said document.23

J. At the time of accused Fondevilla's resignation, the firm wasmoving offices. Consequently, the paralegal assigned to submitthe papers before the SEC failed to process the said papersimmediat~

" p. 6, TSN,Feb""y 11, 2016 /l '/'16 pp. 6, 8, TSN, February 11, 2016 /V17 p. 8, TS'N, February 11, 201618 p. 9, TSN, February 11, 201619 pp. 9-10, TSN, February 11, 201620 p. 10, TSN, F~bruary 11, 201621 pp. 10-11, TSN, February 11, 201622 pp. 11-12, TSN, February 11, 201623 p. 14, TSN, February 11, 201624 p. 12, TSN, February 11, 2016


k. Atty. Bernie Fondevilla did not practice his profession in their lawfirm when he was already FTI President. As far as he is aware,the a<?cuseddoes not want to practice law anymore.25

a. He was one of the original members of Fondevilla, Jasarino,Young, Rondario and Librojo Law Offices.26

b. He and his brother Atty. Jim G. Fondevilla, and their friends,Attys. Eugeryl T. Rondario, Zeus B. Librojo, Frederick Young andWilly Jasarino agreed to form a law firm. But since most of themwere still members of other law firms, they agreed that Atty.Rondario and Atty. Jasarino would form the initial firm.27

c. The entry of the other partners was formalized by the amendmentof the Articles of Partnership (Exhibit "3"), thus formingFondevilla, Jasarino, Rondario, Young, FondevilJ'a and LibrojoLaw Offices in 2000, the same year he became a namedpartner.28

d. He left the firm on November 18,2002 because he was appointedas President of the FTI. He was appointed to the position onNovember 29,2002. He assumed office on December 1,2002.29

e. After he left the firm, the remaining partners moved their office.The partnership was dissolved sometime thereafter.3o

f. He entrusted the processing of the documentation of hiswithdrawal from the firm to his partners. He was surprised whenhe learned that the documents were not filed until much later, inJune 2003.31

g. He signed the Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19,2003.32

h. As far as he was concerned, he met with his partners and theyagreed that he would no longer be part ;rOfthe firm prior to hisassumption of office on December 1, 2002.33

-- '/?2S p. 13, TSN, February 11, 2016 .-.I .26 p. 8, TSN, April 5, 2016 I27 p. 8, TSN, April 5, 201628 pp. 8-9, TSN, April 5, 201629 p. 11, TSN, April 5, 201630 p. 22, TSN, April 5, 201631 p. 13, TSN, April 5, 201632 p. 20, TSN, April 5, 201633 p. 13, TSN, April 5, 2016


I. He served as President of FTI until 2005. Thereafter, he wasappointed Executive Director of National Agriculture and FisheryCouncil in the same year.34

j. After withdrawing from the firm, he did not sig~ any pleading orappear for and in behalf of the firm's clients in any proceeding.He devoted all of his time to FTI, which had many troubles at thetime.35

k. The time record of FTI shows that he regularly reported for work.When he left FTI, the Board and shareholders of FTI gave him acommendation for his part in FTI's financial recovery (Exhibits "1-H" and "1_1").36

I. He did not rejoin the law firm after leaving FTI in 2005 becausehe was appointed as Executive Director' of the NationalAgriculture and Fishery Council, and assumed office as such.37

m. He requested from the law firm a copy of the minutes of themeeting to prove that he withdrew from the firm. He was informedthat the firm could not secure a copy of the minutes.38

The Court admitted all the exhibits offered by the defense.39

Exhibit Document1 Letter dated March 3, 2014 of Atty. Ryan A. Martinez1-A Letter of Appointment dated November 29, 2002 of Bernie

G. Fondevilla1-B and 1-C Job Description of the President and Chief Executive Officer

of FTI1-0 and 1-E Employee Service Records of Bernie G. Fondevilla1-F and 1-G FTI Board Resolution NO.1 0-20-051-H and 1-1 FTI Board Resolution No. 10-21-05

1-J FTI Personnel Information Sheet of Bernie G. Fondevilla2 and series Articles of Partnership of Jasarino and Rondario Law Offices

dated May 12, 1999 .3 and series Amended Articles of Partnership' of Fondevilla Jasarino

Fondevilla Young Rondario and Librojo Law Offices datedJune 2000

4 and series Amended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla Jasarino, Young R~rio and Librojo Law Offices dated June 19,

. 2003-----_\~.7t /Z

34 p. 14, TSN, AprilS, 2016 \.~ / _ ",i35 pp. 14-15, TSN, AprilS, 2016 . <)' •36 p. 16, TSN, April 5, 2016 fI'"

37 p. 18, TSN, AprilS, 201638 p_22, TSN, AprilS, 201639 p. 464, Record (Resolution dated June 1, 2016)


___ 5__ -.:==J Letter dated June 17, 2003 of Atty. Willian L. Jasarino

The prosecution did not present rebuttal evidence.4o

On May 18, 1999, the Articles of Partnership41 of Jasarino andRondario Law Offices was submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC). The Articles of Partnership was amended42sometime in 2000 to include Attys. Jim Fondevilla, Bernie Fondevilla(the accused), Frederick Young and Zeus Librojo in the partnership.The six (6) of them were identified as the founding partners.

On November 29, 2002, the accused was appointed43 asPresident of Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI), a government-owned andcontrolled corporation (GOCC). He assumed office on December 1,2002 and held the position until November 1, 2005.

On June 20, 2003 - more than six (6) months from the time theaccused assumed his position as President of FTI - the AmendedArticles of Partnership was, again, amended.44 The name of theaccused was removed from the partnership name. However, he wasstill indicated as one of the founding partners, with a handwritten notestating liON LEAVE: See attached letter." The accused also signed thesaid Amended Articles of Partnership. Attached to the AmendedArticles of Partnership was Atty. William L. Jasarino's letter45 datedJune 17, 2003, a portion of which reads:

This has reference to the partnership's application for a change offirm name.

Due to the appointment in the government of Atty. Bernie G.Fondevilla, one of the name partners, the partnership had decided tochange its firm name from "FONDEVILLA JASARINOFONDEVILLA YOUNG RONDARIO AND L1BROJO LAWOFFICES" to "FONDEVIL~~SARINO YOUNG RONDARIO AND

L1BROJO LAW OFFICES~ ~ (J r ,

40 p. 24, TSN, April 5, 2016 •.•••.•./41 Exhibit 2 ' 142 Exhibits C/343 Exhibits A-l/1-A44 Exhibits B to B-12/44S Exhibits B-15/5


On February 7, 2008, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of theOffice of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against the accused for notwithdrawing from the Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rondarioand Librojo Law Offices and not divesting himself of his interest thereinafter he assumed office as President of FTI.46

In the Joint Resolution dated November 28, 2011, the Office ofthe Ombudsman found probable cause to charge the accused withviolation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.47 The Information in thepresent case was filed before the Court on January 14, 2014.

Accused is charged with violation of Sec. 7(b), par. 2 of R.A. No.6713, by b~coming a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young,Rondario and Librojo Law Offices, a law firm engaged in the privatepractice of law, despite having no authority to do so and whilesimultaneously holding th~ position as President of FTI.

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition toacts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribedin the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constituteprohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employeeand are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. -Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflictor tend to conflict with their official functions.

These prohibitions are predicated on the principle that publicoffice is a public trust and serve to remove any impropriety, re~

46 p. 11, Record /?47 pp. 4-10, Record ,

,f'


imagined, which may occur in government transactions. These alsopromote the observance and the efficient use of every moment of theprescribed office hours to serve the public.48

To determine whether the accused is guilty of violation of Sec.7(b )(2) of R.A. No. 6713, the prosecution must show that the followingelements are present:

1. The accused is a public official or employee. .2. The ac~used was engaged in the private practice of his or her

profession during his or her incumbency.3. Such private practice of profession is not authorized by the

Constitution or law, or tends to conflict with the official functionsof the public official or employee.

Under R.A. No. 6713, a public official "includes elective orappointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whetherin the career or non-career service"49serving in Government, includingGoCCs, and their subsidiaries. 50

As defined, a GoCC is either a "parent" corporation, i.e., onecreated by special law or a "subsidiary" corporation, i.e., one createdpursuant to faw where at least a majority of the outstanding votingcapital stock of which is owned by a parent government corporationand/or other government-owned subsidiaries. 51

Accused was President of FTI, a GoCC and a major subsidiaryof the National Food Authority.52 Letter of Instruction NO.1 013, whichcreated FTI, expressly provides that "the FTI be included in thecategory of government owned/controlled corporations."53 Further, inNavarra v. Ombudsman,54 the Supreme Court tangentially ruled thatthe Ombudsman has jurisdiction over officials and employees of theFTI when it ordered the Ombudsman to file an Information for GraveCoercion against FTI officials, namely, Samuel Namanama (head of

49 See. 3(b)50 Sec. 3(a) ,51 Carandang v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 148076 and 153161, January 12, 2011 ' •52 p. 4, TSN, September 17, 201553 fn Lumanta v. NLRC (G.R. No. 82819 February 8,1989), the Supreme Court clarified that FTI is a 7government-owned and controlled corporation without original charter.54 G.R. No. 176291, December 4,2009,

DECISIONPeople. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-OO 11

FTl's legal department), Danilo Medina (FTl's senior manager) andFelixberto Lazaro (FTl's legal assistant).

The aforecited rulings make it clear that accused was a publicofficial covered by the prohibition against engaging in the privatepractice of profession without authority under Sec. 7(b)(2) of R.A. No.6713. Hence, the first element is present.

As a public official, the accused was bound by the prohibition inSec. 7(b )(2) of R.A. No. 6713 from the til11e he accepted his.appointment to the position of President of FTI. He was mandated todedicate his time and efforts towards the management of FTI and notto engage in the simultaneous private practice of his profession.

"Practice of law" is broadly defined as any activity, in and out ofcourt, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,knowledge, training and experience.55 The term implies customarily orhabitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer forcompensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of hisservices. Holding oneself out as a lawyer may be shown by actsindicative of that purpose such as identifying oneself as an attorney,appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneselfas a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.56

In Binalay v. Lelina,57 the Supreme Court s·~spended a judge forengaging <.in the private practice of law during his preventivesuspension on account of an administrative case against him, and forallowing a law firm to continue carrying his name. It was held:

Additionally, a judge should not permit a law firm, of which hewas formerly an active member, to continue to carry his name in thefirm name as that might create the impression that the firmpossesses an improper influence with the judge which consequentlyis likely to impel those in need of legal services in connection withmatters before him to engage the services of the firm. x x x

By allowing his name to be included in the firm name"Bartolome Lelina Calimag Densing & Associates "Law Offices" ~

-55-ca-y-et-an-o-v.-M-o-ns-Od-,-G-.R-.N-o-.1-00113, Septemb" 3, 1991 . , ~

56 Cambaliza v. Crista/-Tenorio, Adm. Case No. 6290, July 14, 2004 ",) '"57 A.M. No. RTJ-08-2132, July 31,2009 /


holding a judicial office, he held himself to the public as a practicinglawyer, x x ~.

The circumstances in the aforecited case are markedly differentfrom those in the present case. There, the respondent actuallyperformed other ~cts that constituted "engaging in the private practiceof law." Here, nothing in the evidence on record would show that theaccused, during his incumbency, actually performed acts constitutingprivate practice of law, such as signing pleadings or representingclients in any proceeding, or participating in the activities of the lawfirm.

Nevertheless, this Court finds basis for concluding that theaccused was engaged in the private practice of law during hisincumbency as President of FTI.

In SamC?nte v. Gatdula,58 the name of therein respondent, Atty.Gatdula, Branch Clerk of Court, appeared on a calling card with thename "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardo, Dimailig and Celera." The SupremeCourt held that the inclusion or retention of his name in the cardconstitutes an act of solicitation, and reprimanded Atty. Gatdula forengaging in the private practice of law. It ruled:

The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admissionthat it is his name which appears on the calling card, a permissibleform of advertising or solicitation of legal services. Respondent doesnot claim that the calling card was printed without his knowledge orconsent and the calling card carries his name primarily and the nameof Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in theleft corner. The card clearly gives the impression that tle isconnected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his namein the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation whichviolates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwiseknown as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officialsand Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official oremployee to, among others:

"(2) Engage in private practice of their profession unless authorized by theConstitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflictwith official functions."

There, the High Court noted that the respondent did not claimthat the calling card was printed without his knowledge or consen/ll~

/\)\l58 A.M. No. P-99-1292, February 26, 1999 ./2

LJECISIONPeople. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

especially considering that the calling card carried his name primarily,and the names of the law firm indicated in the corner.

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a partner whoaccepts public office to withdraw from the firm. Rule 3.03 provides:

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shallwithdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firmname unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

In the case at bar, the Amended Articles of Partnership datedJune 19, 200359 was amended solely for the purpose of removing thename of the accused in the partnership name. This is supported bythe attached letter dated June 17, 2003,60 stating that the name of theaccused was being removed from the partnership name because of hisappointment to a government position. There is no doubt that thename of the accused was dropped from the firm name, but it was notshown that he actually withdrew from the firm.

The accused' and Atty. Librojo's averment that the accusedwithdrew from the partnership is belied by the fact that he was stillindicated as a founding partner, albeit "on leave," in the AmendedArticles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003. Being "on leave" fallsshort of the requirement in Rule 3.03 that the partner withdraws fromthe firm. This Court notes that the accused signed said AmendedArticles,61 and thus, he cannot now claim that he has no knowledge ofthe inclusion of his name therein.

Although it was not shown that he actually performed other actsconstituting "engaging in the private practice of law," he allowedhimself to be associated as a partner of the law firm, and thus, heldhimself out to the public as a lawyer. Nonetheless, he cannot beconvicted on such basis because the facts proved by the prosecutionare different from those alleged in the Informatjon.

,

In People v. Macagaling,62 it was held that the prosecution hasthe burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of theoffense as alleged in the Information. Viz.>y·/tC'/J59 Exhibits C/360 Exhibits B-15/561 p. 20, TSN, April 5, 20166J G.R. Nos. 109131-33, October 3, 1994


x x x. We cannot see how the rule can be otherwise since i!is the inescapable duty of the prosecution to prove all the ingredientsof the offense as alleged against the accused in ao information,which allegations must perforce include any negative elementprovided- by the law to integrate that offense. We have reiteratedquite recently the fundamental mandate that since the prosecutionmust allege all the elements of the offense charged, then it mustprove by the requisite quantum of evidence all the elements it hasthus alleged.

Here, the Information charges the accused of becoming afounding partner of the Fondevilla Jasarino Young Rondario & LibrojoLaw Offices during his incumbency as President of FTI. To wit:

x x x on June 19, 2003 or sometime prior or subsequentthereto x x x the above named accused x x x willfully, unlawfully andcriminally engage in the private practice of his profession as a lawyer,by becoming a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla,Yong [sic], Rondario and Librojo Law Offices, a law firm engaged inthe private practice of law, despite no authority to do so and while

I

simultaneously holding the position as President of FTI x x x.

On the other hand, the prosecution proved that he was afounding partner of the law firm long before he was appointed to theposition of President of FTI, but he did not withdraw from the law firmupon his appointment to the position. Convicting the accused on suchbasis would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause ofthe accusation against him, such right being granted by no less thanthe Constitution.

The prosecl,Jtion proved that the accused was engaged in theprivate" practiGe of his profession during his incumbency as Presidentof FTI by failing to withdraw from the law firm with which he wasconnected prior to his acceptance of a public office. However, hecannot be convicted therefor because that was not the charge againsthim. As previously discussed, he was charged for criminally engagingin the private practice of his profession as a lawyer by becoming afounding partner of Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rond~~~and Librojo Law Offices. Hence, the Court will not determine whet~~.

. X,

DECISIONPeopk. vs. FondevillaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

or not the third element, i.e., such private practice of profession is notauthorized by the Constitution or law, or tends to conflict with the officialfunctions of the accused, is present.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt thatthe accused was engaged in the private practice of law by becoming afounding partner of Fondevilla Jasarino Young Rondario & Librojo LawOffices during his incumbency as President of FTI.

WHEREFORE, accused BERNIE G. FONDEVILLA is herebyACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyondreasonable doubt.

Let the hold departure order against the a.ccused be lifted andset aside, and his bond released, subject to the usual accounting andauditing procedure.

DECISIONPeople. vs. FondeviJIaCriminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-OO 11

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reachedin consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinionof the Court's Division.

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that theconclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation beforethe case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court'sDivision.

~O~JE-T/ Presiding Justice

Chairperson

~anoibanha~an - sandiganbayan home...

Documents