Facts:

Aleem Ameroddin Sarangani, the complainant, filed a complaint for disbarment against Attorneys Wynne B. Asdala, Paca-ambung MACabando, and Tingara-an Bangkiro on the grounds of alleged violations of several provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and their oaths of office. The incident took place following the May 11, 1998 elections in which Sarangani was a candidate for Governor of Lanao del Sur. The respondents served as the chairman, vice-chairman, and third member of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) for the province during those elections. Sarangani averred that on July 1, 1998, the respondents unlawfully proclaimed Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan as the winning candidate for governor despite knowing there were ongoing election failures in a total of 22 towns, which involved approximately 127,000 votes. The purported proclamation was executed via a document known as the “Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates,” signed by Asdala, Macabando, an

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Aleem Ameroddin Sarangani, a candidate for Governor of Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1998 elections, filed a complaint for disbarment.
• Respondents Atty. Wynne B. Asdala, Atty. Paca-ambung C. Macabando, and Atty. Tingara-an M. Bangkiro are members of the Philippine Bar who served, respectively, as Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and third member of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) for Lanao del Sur during the 1998 elections.

Alleged Misconduct and Complaint Details

• Complainant alleged that on July 1, 1998, in Manila, the respondents clandestinely, conspired, and surreptitiously proclaimed Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan as the winning candidate for Governor.
• The purported proclamation was based on a document labeled as a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates for Provincial Governor and Provincial Vice-Governor.
• The document was alleged to rely on incomplete election results as it omitted results from twelve towns with total election failures and ten towns with partial failures, amounting to about 127,000 votes.
• Complainant asserted that the proclamation was null and void as declared by COMELEC through its Minute Resolution No. 99-2130 dated July 14, 1998.

Respondents’ Defensive Submissions and Actions

• In his comment on October 1, 1998, Atty. Asdala claimed that
• The xerox copies of the Certificate of Proclamation were prepared merely as aides-mémoire to guide the Board in the event of an official proclamation by the Commission.
• The document was not intended as the final official proclamation, which was to be done subsequently in Marawi City after proper notice.
• Atty. Macabando, in his October 8, 1998 comment, denied that the PBC convened in Manila to proclaim any candidate and maintained that, given that an original copy was not distributed (as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 3030 dated April 7, 1998), the alleged document held no probative value.
• Atty. Bangkiro failed to file his comment; consequently, he was summoned to show cause and later fined P1,000.00 and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and appropriate sanction.

Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

• The case was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, with Atty. Milagros V. San Juan designated as the investigating commissioner.
• A Notice of Hearing was issued for July 23, 2002, but due to non-appearance by complainant and respondent Bangkiro, the hearing was reset to September 10 and 12, 2002.
• At the September 10, 2002 hearing, only respondents Asdala and Macabando appeared. The investigating commissioner took note of the non-appearance of the complainant and considered the case as submitted for resolution based solely on the pleadings on record.
• Subsequently, the IBP Commission, through its Report and Recommendation dated November 7, 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents for two (2) years from the practice of law.
• On June 21, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors approved Resolution No. XV-2003-334 adopting the recommendation to suspend the respondents.

Motion to Set Aside the IBP Resolution

• Before the Court could rule on the IBP resolution, respondents Asdala and Macabando filed a Motion to Set Aside Resolution No. XV-2003-334.
• They contended that:
• They were deprived of their full opportunity to defend themselves in violation of Section 8, Rule 139-B of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The IBP did not conduct a formal, independent investigation prior to submitting its Report and Recommendation.
• Contrary to the IBP’s findings, they argued that no formal proclamation had been made by the PBC and that the alleged Certificate of Canvass was merely a xerox copy lacking evidentiary value.
• The respondents also emphasized that the hearing on September 10, 2002, might have been misconstrued, noting that they had moved for dismissal on grounds of failure to prosecute due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

Procedural Irregularities and Evidentiary Concerns

• The Court noted that the authentication of the alleged Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation remained unverified.
• There was concern that the document could have been fabricated, and the original copy was never presented to definitively establish its authenticity.
• The absence of a formal, trial-type hearing raised issues regarding the denial of the respondents’ right to due process both substantively and procedurally.

Ultimate Disposition of the Case by the Court

• The Court found that the lack of conclusive evidence concerning the authenticity of the document and the procedural irregularities in the IBP investigation warranted further examination.
• As a result, the Court remanded the case to the IBP for further proceedings with dispatch to properly determine the authenticity of the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation.

Issue:

• Whether the respondents’ actions in allegedly issuing a Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation – purportedly with incomplete election results – violated Sections 231, 261, and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code, as well as Sections 9 and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2962 dated January 5, 1998.
• Whether the respondents, by issuing the said document without proper Commission authority and due process, committed acts amounting to dishonest conduct, grave abuse of authority, and serious misconduct in office, thereby violating their oaths as lawyers.
• Whether the IBP’s investigation and recommendation of suspension, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, complied with the due process requirements as embodied in Section 8, Rule 139-B of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether the alleged Certificate of Canvass, being only a xerox copy without verification through an original document, provides sufficient probative value to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
• Whether the procedural irregularities (including the non-appearance of the complainant and respondent Bangkiro, and the handling of the motion to dismiss for nolle prosequi) undermined the integrity and fairness of the disciplinary process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)