A.C. No. 9912 - Duque Jr. vs. Brillantes Jr.

A disbarment complaint was initiated by Datu Remigio M. Duque, Jr. against former COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, and Christian Robert S. Lim; together with other respondents including attorneys and a prosecutor.
The complaint is tied to an earlier election dispute where Duque, a candidate for Punong Barangay of Lomboy, La Paz, Tarlac, contested the election results citing numerous irregularities during the vote canvassing process.

Duque alleged several irregularities in the canvassing process, notably the discovery of allegedly crumpled official ballots and unsigned election returns during the recount proceedings.
The original complaint posed violations under various provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, including Sections 223, 224, Article 19, Section 261 (y) (17), (z) (21), and Article 22.

On June 13, 2011, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Noel S. Adion recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the COMELEC has the exclusive authority to investigate election offenses.
Duque's subsequent petition for reconsideration was denied, and the case was forwarded to the COMELEC.
On March 14, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed the election-related complaint for lack of probable cause, emphasizing that Duque had not substantiated his allegations with clear and convincing evidence.

Despite the dismissal of the election case, Duque filed the present disbarment complaint against the respondents, charging them with conduct unbecoming a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, and gross misconduct.
The thrust of the complaint centers on the March 14, 2013 Resolution which dismissed Duque’s earlier complaint, contending that the respondents conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights.

Respondents, invoking their status as COMELEC Commissioners, contended that as impeachable officers and members of the Bar, they could not be held administratively liable or disbarred except through the constitutional process of impeachment.
They maintained that there was no valid ground for disbarment, highlighting that the COMELEC’s decision – reached after due examination of election documents and procedures – should remain unchallenged absent any grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents further argued that the procedures surrounding the evaluation of election documents are within the exclusive purview of the COMELEC, a specialized quasi-judicial body.

Whether the disbarment complaint may proceed against respondents who, as impeachable officers, require removal from office via impeachment before any administrative liability or disbarment can be imposed.

Whether Duque has met the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondents engaged in conduct unbecoming a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, and gross misconduct.

Whether the actions taken by the COMELEC in dismissing the original election complaint amount to an error that rises to the level of professional misconduct warranting disbarment of the respondents.