Saturday, January 13, 2007 Judge wants stiffer penalty for lawyer By Jay Dooma Balnig
NEWLY-appointed judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Ofelia Artuz wants that a stiffer penalty be imposed against Attorney Plaridel Nava for alleged gross misconduct.
This was the contention of Artuz on the suspension order pinned by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) placing Nava under six months suspension.
The comment comes after the motion for reconsideration filed by Nava before the disciplining commission in IBP National Office in Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Commissioner Dennis Funa last April 11, 2006 in his resolution states, "Premises considered, it is submitted that respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and should be given the penalty of six month suspension."
The suspension order stemmed from the complaint of Artuz saying that the young Nava and his father, Sumakwel Nava lambasted and libeling her in a local radio station alleging that Artuz is biased, partial and acts in bad faith.
In the local newspaper published and circulated by the Navas, a photo of Artuz were allegedly altered and appeared that she was cross-eyed.
The newspaper circulated in the Iloilo Hall of Justice.
Nava however denied the allegations of Artuz.
Nava asserted that when he went to the office of Artuz, who was supposed to handle the inquest investigation of a murder case he was handling as legal counsel, Artuz "without any apparent reason, shouted that she would not accept the case and that she would order the release of the suspect if the latter won't sign a waiver of detention" added that Artuz "went out from her cubicle, threw our complaint in the table of her secretary and continually showed her tantrum without any amount of justification."
Nava also denied lambasting and libeling Artuz in a local radio. He added that it was a client without his knowledge and consent, who went to the radio station.
And during the course of interview, the anchorman called him up and interviewed him on air.
He added that what he said over the radio is "purely factual" and not libelous.
Nava also denied having anything to do with the publication in his father's newspaper.
But in the issue of the charge that the young Nava "caused" the alteration of Artuz's photo to make it appear that she is "cross-eyed", the commission says, "there is sufficient factual basis to hold respondent liable."
Based on the account of the witness, John Gomez, the former employee of Attorney Nava, said sometime in September 2003, the young Nava and his father distorted the picture of Artuz to make it appear that she is "cross-eyed" and published the same in their local tabloid on Sept. 1-15, 2003 issue.
Gomez, who was employed as messenger of Attorney Nava in his law office in Jaro was presented by Artuz as witness during the hearing in IBP National office.
