[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
133 views2 pages

CASE #109 Francis C. Arsenio vs. Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017 Facts

The complaint stems from a case Francis Arsenio filed against JS Contractor before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Arsenio alleged the hearing officer, either Atty. Romeo Tabuso or Johan Tabuzo, made offensive statements and dismissed his case improperly. Arsenio filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Office of the Ombudsman ruled against Tabuzo for failing to respond, and the IBP suspended Tabuzo, the Court found the evidence insufficient to disbar Tabuzo. There was discrepancy over whether the officer's name was Romeo Tabuso or Johan Tabuzo. Further, Arsenio's affidavit alone without other evidence was not sufficient to

Uploaded by

Harlene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
133 views2 pages

CASE #109 Francis C. Arsenio vs. Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017 Facts

The complaint stems from a case Francis Arsenio filed against JS Contractor before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Arsenio alleged the hearing officer, either Atty. Romeo Tabuso or Johan Tabuzo, made offensive statements and dismissed his case improperly. Arsenio filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Office of the Ombudsman ruled against Tabuzo for failing to respond, and the IBP suspended Tabuzo, the Court found the evidence insufficient to disbar Tabuzo. There was discrepancy over whether the officer's name was Romeo Tabuso or Johan Tabuzo. Further, Arsenio's affidavit alone without other evidence was not sufficient to

Uploaded by

Harlene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE #109

FRANCIS C. ARSENIO vs. ATTY. JOHAN A. TABUZO


A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017

FACTS:
This case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Francis Arsenio before the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration against JS Contractor. He alleged that Atty. ROMEO
TABUSO, the Overseas Employment Adjudicator who was assigned to hear the case, uttered
offensive statements, asked him to sign three blank sheets of paper, and dismissed his case against
JS Contractor. Hence, he filed a complaint against Atty. Romeo Tabuso before the Office of the
Ombudsman for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. "
Atty. JOHAN TABUZO filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging, among others, that there is
no Atty. Romeo Tabuso in the POEA and that he was never handed any copy of summons. He
claimed that he was merely taking the initiative in filing the said motion to clear his name as he
believed he was the person referred to in the earlier Order of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Nonetheless, such motion was subsequently denied. Meanwhile, in a Decision dated December 6,
2011, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 213 of Mandaluyong City acquitted Atty. Tabuzo for violation
of RA No. 3019. Subsequently, Arsenio filed the present Complaint-Affidavit before the Court. Arsenio
sought the disbarment of Atty. Johan Tabuzo for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Atty.
Tabuzo denied the accusations against him and claimed that his constitutional right to due process
was violated. The IBP Board of Governors suspended Atty. Tabuzo from the practice of law for three
months.

ISSUE:
Whether the disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Johan A.
Tabuzo.

HELD:
No. Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden
of proof rests upon the complainant. The proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is
substantial evidence. The Resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman together with the
Affidavit of Arsenio cannot be considered as substantial evidence.

1. The Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman was decided on the basis of the failure of Atty.
Tabuzo to controvert the allegations of Arsenio. There was a seeming discrepancy as to the name
of Atty. Johan Tabuzo when a case against him was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Undisputedly, the case before said Office was filed against a certain Atty. Romeo Tabuso, when
the name of herein respondent is Atty. Johan Tabuzo. However, a reading of the RTC Decision
reveals that Arsenio was able to verify the identity of Atty. Johan Tabuzo, not as Atty. Romeo
Tabuso, even before he filed his complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. It is confusing,
therefore, why there was discrepancy as to the name of herein respondent when a clarification
was already made.
2. The Complaint-Affidavit was not sufficient as no evidence was further offered to prove the
allegations contained therein, hence it failed to discharge the necessary burden of proof. In his
Sworn Affidavit, Arsenio merely narrated that Atty. Tabuzo uttered offensive statements and no
other evidence was presented to substantiate his claim. Emphatically, such Complaint-Affidavit is
self-serving.

You might also like