Case Digest (G.R. No. 221709)
Facts:
The case at hand involves a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta (the complainant) against Respondents Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner, both Commissioners of the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The complaint was lodged on March 30, 2009, and centered around alleged violations committed during the 2007 National and Local Elections. These violations pertained to a dispute over the representation of the party-list group “Alagad,” where both Marcoleta and Diogenes S. Osabel claimed the right to represent it after Alagad secured a seat in the House of Representatives.
Initially, the Comelec’s First Division, through an Omnibus Resolution dated July 18, 2007, favored Osabel. However, upon appeal, the Comelec En Banc reversed this decision through a Resolution dated November 6, 2007, reinstating Marcoleta’s group’s certificate of nomination. Nevertheless, a lack of majority vote necessitated a re-hearing, which could not resolve the issue, leading to
Case Digest (G.R. No. 221709)
Facts:
- Filing of the Complaint
- A complaint for disbarment was initiated by Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta (complainant) against two Comelec Commissioners, Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner (respondents).
- The charges alleged violations against the respondents for:
- Canons 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03) and 3 (Rules 3.01, 3.02, 3.05, and 3.06) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Canons 4, 5, 6, and 17 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
- The provisions of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
- Background and Election-Related Dispute
- During the 2007 National and Local Elections, two competing factions—one represented by complainant Marcoleta and the other by Diogenes S. Osabel—filed separate nomination lists for the party-list group ALAGAD.
- The initial dispute concerning the nomination and the right to represent ALAGAD was first resolved by the Comelec’s First Division in favor of Osabel through an Omnibus Resolution.
- Commissioner Borra authored the ponencia while Commissioner Brawner concurred.
- The resolution was later elevated to the Comelec En Banc, which reversed the First Division decision and reinstated the nomination certificate for complainant’s group.
- However, due to the failure to achieve the required majority vote, the Comelec ordered a re-hearing that too could not muster the necessary support, leading to the affirmation of the First Division’s Omnibus Resolution.
- Allegations Against the Respondents
- The complaint charged that the respondents:
- Promulgated an irregular Omnibus Resolution characterized by manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
- Unnecessarily delayed resolution of the case—from the mandated 5 days to nearly 4 months—in order to affect the political campaign dynamics for ALAGAD.
- Specific grievances included:
- The change of the central issue from one determining the complete resolution of the controversy to one that allegedly fell outside the Comelec’s jurisdiction.
- Failure to cite any law in support of the ruling regarding the form of the petitioner’s resignation.
- Use of dissents or marginal notes by respondents that revealed bias and an intention to manipulate the outcome.
- The complaint further alleged that respondent Borra employed vague references to “conscience and judiciousness” to avoid providing a separate dissenting opinion.
- A Supplemental Complaint was filed on February 12, 2008, specifically charging respondent Brawner with tampering with the record in SPA No. 07-020 by falsely alleging a re-hearing and misrepresenting the parties’ subsequent actions.
- Respondents’ Defense and Contending Arguments
- Respondent Brawner, in his Answer, maintained that:
- The proper remedy for any error in judgment or alleged abuse of discretion should be judicial, not administrative; hence, a disbarment complaint was not the appropriate vehicle.
- As a member of a constitutional body exercising quasi-judicial functions, he and Borra are insulated from a disbarment complaint on grounds of impeachment status.
- Respondent Borra contended that:
- The Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics do not apply to him as he is not a member of the judiciary but a commissioner carrying out quasi-judicial and administrative functions.
- The complaint was premature since the validity of the resolutions was still subject to judicial review.
- Complainant countered that the constitutional requirement for a majority of Comelec members to be lawyers did not grant the respondents immunity from disbarment when acting in their capacity as members of the Bar.
- Additional Contextual Developments
- Respondent Borra retired from the Comelec on February 2, 2008.
- Respondent Brawner passed away on May 29, 2008, rendering the complaint against him moot.
- The allegations extended beyond the conduct in the disputed Omnibus Resolution to include claims of violating anti-graft laws by allegedly hastening the release of retirement benefits amidst pending criminal and administrative cases.
- Other administrative issues raised pertained to the adjustment of compensation schemes for Comelec officials.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy
- Whether disbarment is the proper remedy for conduct arising from the quasi-judicial functions as performed by the respondents in the context of election-related disputes.
- Whether the complaint can proceed against impeachable officers who are also members of the Philippine Bar without first undergoing the constitutional impeachment process.
- Specific Allegations Against the Omnibus Resolution
- Whether the manner and timing of the promulgation of the Omnibus Resolution violated prescribed procedural requirements—specifically the mandated period for resolution—and reflected manifest partiality, bad faith, and negligence.
- Whether the content of the resolution, including the failure to cite a legal basis and the alteration of the central issue, justifies a disbarment complaint.
- Application of the Codes of Judicial Ethics and Conduct
- Whether the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics are applicable to Comelec commissioners, given their quasi-judicial status.
- Whether the alleged deviations in the conduct of the respondents, including the issuance of a questionable dissenting opinion and manipulation of facts, breach the standards set for judicial or quasi-judicial officers.
- Validity of Additional Allegations
- Whether respondent Brawner’s alleged tampering with institutional records constitutes a ground for disbarment.
- Whether the release of retirement benefits to respondent Borra, despite the existence of pending charges, exhibited any irregularities warranting disbarment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)