Facts:

On July 17, 2006, complainant Augusto P. Baldado filed a Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline against respondent Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica, alleging gross incompetence, negligence, and ignorance of the law. Baldado, a former member of the Sangguniang Bayan in Sulat, Eastern Samar, had won in the 2004 elections. Following his election, a losing candidate, Florentino C. Nival, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar, alleging that Baldado was disqualified due to his American citizenship. This case was assigned to the RTC Branch 2 as Civil Case No. 3900. Baldado retained Mejica to defend him. Mejica submitted an Answer and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to Nival’s failure to pay the proper filing fee. The trial court denied this motion, citing procedural rules that prohibited a motion to dismiss after an Answer has been fil

...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Complainant:
• Augusto P. Baldado, a former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar.
• Formerly an elected official who won the 2004 National and Local Elections.
• Respondent:
• Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica, counsel retained by Baldado for his election-related case.

The Election Controversy and Proceedings

• Election Challenge:
• Florentino C. Nival, a losing candidate in the 2004 elections, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar.
• Allegation questioned Baldado’s qualifications as he was reportedly an American citizen, thus challenging his residency requirements.
• Court Proceedings:
• The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 3900, Branch 2 of the RTC of Borongan.
• Baldado, having hired Mejica, was represented in the case.
• Respondent filed an Answer and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to a filing fee irregularity (non-payment by Florentino C. Nival).
• The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, citing that such a motion is proscribed after filing an Answer under Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subsequent Motions and Trial Court Decision

• Motions for Reconsideration:
• First Motion: Filed by respondent seeking reconsideration on the denial of the motion to dismiss; denied due to lack of a Notice of Hearing as mandated by Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Resolution dated January 14, 2005).
• Second Motion: Filed by respondent; denied on the ground that it constituted a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Resolution dated April 29, 2005).
• Trial Court’s Final Decision (May 6, 2005):
• Issued a Decision directing the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto.
• Ordered the ouster of Baldado from the office of the Sangguniang Bayan and declared his position vacant.
• The decision was based on the finding that Baldado, having reacquired Philippine citizenship and residency on September 29, 2003, did not meet the “one-year residency” requirement immediately preceding the election.

Respondent’s Handling of Post-Trial Actions

• Receipt of Trial Court Decision:
• On May 19, 2005, respondent received a copy of the trial court’s Decision.
• He maintained that the decision was not officially promulgated in open court; therefore, the five-day appeal period had not commenced.
• Filing with the COMELEC:
• On May 26, 2005, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the COMELEC, seeking annulment of the resolutions (dated January 14, 2005 and April 29, 2005) denying his motions for reconsideration.
• Notably, respondent did not file an appeal from the trial court’s Decision.
• COMELEC’s Intervention:
• On May 16, 2006, the First Division of the COMELEC dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
• The COMELEC ruled that the trial court’s jurisdiction had been proper (given that the appropriate filing fees had been paid by Florentino C. Nival as evidenced by the Legal Fees Form).
• The remedy available was a notice of appeal under Section 14, Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules, not certiorari, and respondent’s opportunity to appeal had lapsed.

Filing of the Administrative Complaint

• On July 17, 2006, Baldado filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline against Mejica.
• Allegations against respondent included:
• Gross incompetence and gross negligence by failing to render timely legal service.
• Gross ignorance of the law for:
• Improperly filing a Motion to Dismiss after the filing of the Answer.

ii. Filing motions for reconsideration that were deficient (one lacking a Notice of Hearing and another being a prohibited pleading). iii. Failing to file a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s Decision, opting instead to file a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica committed gross incompetence, gross negligence, and gross ignorance of the law by:

• Filing a Motion to Dismiss after the Answer despite procedural prohibitions, and
• Failing to timely file an appeal from the trial court’s Decision in the quo warranto case.

• Whether respondent’s alternative filing of a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, in lieu of a timely appeal, can be justified on the basis of the alleged non-promulgation of the trial court’s Decision.

• Whether the procedural mishandlings by respondent amount to a violation of the ethical and professional standards prescribed in Canon 17 and Canon 18 (including Rules 18.01, 18.02, and 18.03) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Whether the apparent inexperience of respondent (being his first case after admission to the bar) is a mitigating circumstance that can excuse or lessen his professional lapses.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)