G.R. No. L-63915 - Tanada vs. Tuvera

The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Chan Shun Kuen, the General Manager and CEO of Compromise Enterprises Corporation (CEC), against four respondents from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC):

Commissioners Lourdes B. Coloma-Javier, Gregorio O. Bilog III, and Raul Tagle Aquino.
Deputy Executive Clerk Atty. Joyrich M. Golangco.

This disbarment complaint is directly linked to a prior labor case, Felisa B. Toribio, et al. v. Compromise Enterprises Corporation and/or Margaret So Chan, wherein:

The labor case involved claims for illegal dismissal, unpaid service incentive leave, and 13th month pay.
The decision was rendered against CEC, ordering the payment of separation pay amounting to P5,543,807.57 in lieu of reinstatement.
CEC did not appeal the labor decision, thus rendering it final and executory.

The complainants in the labor case moved for execution of the decision.
A Writ of Execution was duly issued, and the sheriff levied the property (Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19784) of CEC.
The labor case was resolved on October 16, 2007, by a decision of the NLRC Third Division in favor of the complainants.

Instead of appealing the labor decision, the complainant pursued a series of complaints, both administrative and criminal, against one or several of the respondents before different bodies.

These included multiple suits that were characterized as baseless and duplicative.
The complainant had previously filed similar complaints which were dismissed by other bodies, as evidenced in A.C. Nos. 8040 and 8621.

That the NLRC respondents conspired or connived in drafting their decision on the labor case.
That Commissioner Tito F. Genilo’s signature was forged by a personnel of the NLRC Third Division.
That there was a questionable letter from Commissioner Genilo dated December 10, 2007, regarding his inhibition in the labor case.

They argued that the complaint was one instance of forum shopping due to the filing of identical complaints in various forms and venues.
They further contended the complaint was malicious, intended solely to harass and reverse the adverse decision of the Labor Arbiter.

The complainant repeatedly filed suits before different judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
A pattern of filings against the respondents was noted, which essentially revolved around the same labor case decisions.

Assessment of whether the respondent’s actions were within their judicial function as NLRC commissioners.
Consideration of the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations of fabricated documents or misconduct.

Whether the conduct of the respondents—specifically, the alleged connivance in drafting decisions and the purported forgery of Commissioner Genilo’s signature—constitutes serious professional misconduct sufficient to warrant disbarment.

Whether the evidence presented by the complainant meets the required threshold of “clearly preponderant evidence” to justify the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers.
Whether the complainant’s act of filing multiple and similar complaints before various bodies (forum shopping) undermines the judicial process.
Whether the underlying motivation of the complaint was vindictive, intended to obstruct execution of the labor decision and to harass NLRC officials.