Malabed vs. De La Pena

Facts:

Adelpha E. Malabed v. Atty. Meljohn B. De la Pena, A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Adelpha E. Malabed filed an administrative complaint on August 7, 2007 against respondent Atty. Meljohn B. De la Pena for dishonesty and grave misconduct arising from his acts as counsel and his post-dismissal employment.

In the complaint, Malabed alleged (1) respondent filed a civil action for quieting of title using a Certificate to File Action that actually pertained to a different complaint (that of complainant’s brother), meaning there was no valid certificate before the court when respondent’s client filed suit; (2) respondent forwarded to the Court of Appeals a copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730 but did not furnish complainant’s counsel with a copy, and the title was possibly fabricated (supported by DENR and Registry of Deeds certifications denying existence of OCT No. 1730 in their records); (3) respondent had a conflict of interest because he had notarized a deed of donation by Malabed’s family and later represented occupants adverse to the donor family; (4) respondent connived with RTC Judge Enrique C. Asis to obtain favorable rulings for his clients; and (5) respondent flagrantly violated the accessory penalty of his prior dismissal as a judge by accepting and performing as Associate Dean and Professor at the Naval Institute of Technology — University of Eastern Philippines College of Law, a government institution, thereby impermissibly accepting reemployment.

Respondent filed a Comment (Dec. 16, 2007) denying wrongdoing: he asserted the certificate he used was a Lupon Chairman’s certification dated May 9, 2001; he maintained a copy of OCT No. 1730 was on the case folio and furnished to opposing counsel; he distinguished notarization from legal representation; and he claimed his NIT designation was temporary and uncompensated save for honorarium, furnishing copies to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and MCLE office. Complainant and respondent exchanged further pleadings (Reply-Affidavit, Rejoinder, Surrejoinder) which largely reiterated their positions.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz found respondent used offensive language in pleadings, misrepresented that a certificate to file action existed, and accepted prohibited reemployment in a government institution; he recommended one-year suspension from the practice of law. On October 28, 2011 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in Res...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is respondent Atty. Meljohn B. De la Pena guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct? ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)