G.R. No. 219744 - Levi Strauss and Co. vs. Sevilla

Complainant Romulo De Mesa Festin, having been elected as Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in the May 2013 elections, became embroiled in an electoral dispute.
His opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa, filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46 (RTC).

The RTC decided in favor of Villarosa and, on January 15, 2014, issued an Order granting the motion for execution pending appeal.
The Order directed the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court (COC) to issue a writ of execution pending appeal after twenty (20) working days, provided no restraining or status quo order was secured under applicable rules.

In response, a distressed Festin filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the writ’s issuance.
On February 13, 2014, the COMELEC issued a TRO directing the presiding RTC judge to cease and desist from enforcing the January 15, 2014 Order.
Consequently, the RTC issued a subsequent Order on February 25, 2014 directing the COC not to issue the writ of execution pending appeal until further notice.

Despite the TRO and the RTC’s February 25 Order, respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri, acting as counsel for Villarosa, filed five separate manifestations addressed to the Clerk of Court.
These manifestations, which were not served to the adverse party, contended that the twenty-day period for issuing the writ had lapsed by February 12, 2014.
Respondent argued that the TRO, issued on February 13, 2014, applied only to the RTC judge; hence, the COC was not bound by it, and his filing was legally justified.

Festin discovered respondent’s ex parte actions when the sheriff attempted to serve him with the writ.
Subsequently, Festin filed a disbarment complaint alleging that respondent misled and induced the COC into defiance of lawful orders, specifically the COMELEC’s TRO and the RTC’s directive.
Festin asserted that respondent’s actions constituted violations of Canons 1, 10, 15, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The RTC was divested of jurisdiction once case records were filed with the COMELEC, justifying his use of the COC for filing manifestations.
His timely assertion that the twenty-day period had lapsed negated the effect of the TRO; his arguments in the manifestations were honest expressions of his legal belief.
His actions conformed with his duty under Canon 18 of the CPR to zealously represent his client.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initiated an investigation.
On September 1, 2014, the IBP’s Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for respondent, noting that his filing bypassed procedural requirements (e.g., notice of hearing and proper service) and was executed in bad faith.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in a Resolution on December 14, 2014, which after respondent’s unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, led to the filing of a petition for review on October 10, 2016.

Whether respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri should be held administratively liable for his conduct in filing five ex parte “manifestations” instead of properly filing motions, thereby intentionally sidestepping procedural requirements.

Whether the labeling of these submissions as “manifestations” instead of “motions” was a deliberate act to avoid serving notice to the adverse party.
Whether respondent’s actions constituted a violation of his ethical obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically under Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rules such as 10.03.
Whether the respondent’s assertion regarding the lapse of the twenty-day period and the purported lack of binding effect of the COMELEC TRO on the COC is a sufficient justification for his actions.