A.C. No. 9120 - Baldado vs. Mejica

AUGUSTO P. BALDADO, Complainant, filed a Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline on July 17, 2006.
ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA, Respondent, was accused of gross incompetence, gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law for alleged failure to render legal service in violation of Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant was a former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sulat, Eastern Samar and a winning candidate in the May 2004 elections.
Florentino C. Nival filed a Petition for Quo Warranto before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, docketed as Civil Case No. 3900, alleging that complainant was an American citizen and thus ineligible.
Complainant engaged respondent to represent him in the quo warranto action.

Respondent filed an Answer and thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction due to alleged failure of petitioner Nival to pay the appropriate filing/docket fee.
The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss as proscribed after filing of an Answer pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court denied in a Resolution dated January 14, 2005 for lack of notice of hearing pursuant to Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court denied in a Resolution dated April 29, 2005 for being a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 6, 2005 the trial court rendered a Decision directing issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto ousting complainant from his office and declaring the position vacant.
The trial court found that complainant, having been formerly an American citizen, reacquired Philippine citizenship and residency on September 29, 2003, which was short of the one-year residency requirement preceding the May 2004 election.
Respondent received a copy of the Decision on May 19, 2005 and had five days within which to appeal the Decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
On May 21, 2005 complainant personally urged respondent to file a Notice of Appeal; respondent declined, contending the decision had not been promulgated in open court and the appeal period had not commenced.

On May 26, 2005 respondent filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for restraining order and/or injunction to annul or set aside the trial court Resolutions dated January 14, 2005 and April 9, 2005 denying the motions for reconsideration.
Respondent did not file an appeal from the trial court Decision dated May 6, 2005.
On May 16, 2006 the First Division of the COMELEC dismissed respondent's petition for certiorari for lack of merit, holding that correct filing fees had been paid as evidenced by a Legal Fees Form and that the proper remedy was an appeal to the COMELEC under Section 14, Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
The COMELEC declared that complainant had lost his opportunity to appeal and that certiorari was inappropriate when an appeal was available.

Nival filed a motion for execution in the quo warranto case which the trial court granted, and on July 11, 2005 complainant was removed from office.
Complainant engaged new counsel who filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc which was denied on June 21, 2007.
Complainant filed the administrative complaint against respondent on July 17, 2006 alleging mishandling of the case and seeking disbarment or suspension and claiming damages for removal from office and attendant injuries to his person.

Respondent's defenses before the IBP and Investigating Commissioner findings

Whether ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA committed gross incompetence, gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law by failing to timely appeal the trial court Decision in the quo warranto case.
Whether respondent's filing of a Motion to Dismiss after filing an Answer amounted to malpractice or was permissible under existing jurisprudence.

Whether service of a copy of the trial court Decision by mail or delivery constituted promulgation under Section 12, Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and thus started the five-day appeal period.
Whether certiorari to the COMELEC was an adequate remedy in lieu of...(Subscriber-Only)