Case Digest (A.C. No. 2468)
Facts:
Nilo L. Miraflor and Primo L. Miraflor v. Atty. Juan M. Hagad, Atty. Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., Atty. Roland V. Evangelista, Insular Lumber Co. (Phil.), Inc. and Mariano P. Aledron, Adm. Case No. 2468, May 12, 1995, Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.
Complainants Nilo and Primo Miraflor charged respondents—three lawyers (Atty. Juan M. Hagad, Atty. Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., and Atty. Roland V. Evangelista) and corporate defendants Insular Lumber Co. (Phil.), Inc. (ILCOPHIL) and Mariano P. Aledron—with conspiracy to perpetuate obstruction of justice arising from NLRC Case No. ROVI-404-73 (Nilo L. Miraflor v. Insular Lumber Co. (Phil.)). The Court limited the administrative case to respondents who are members of the Bar.
On May 9, 1973, Nilo Miraflor, assisted by his brother Primo, filed an illegal dismissal complaint against ILCOPHIL with the Ministry (now DOLE), Bacolod. The complaint was initially dismissed but the NLRC reversed that dismissal. On appeal to the Office of the President, the NLRC decision was modified: ILCOPHIL was ordered to reinstate Nilo and to pay backwages, and the remand to the NLRC of claims for salary differentials and other fringe benefits was directed.
On November 29, 1976, Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. issued a writ of execution ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages in the sum of P27,260.00. ILCOPHIL, through counsel Atty. Juan M. Hagad, moved to stay execution; Arbiter Aguirre required a P10,000 bond and set a hearing to determine the correct amount of backwages. At some point the arbiter reduced the backwages figure to P14,201.69. Nilo was reinstated; on April 29, 1981 the arbiter rendered a judgment awarding P26,768.28 as salary differentials, bonuses and other fringe benefits. ILCOPHIL filed a motion for reconsideration.
Complainants alleged that respondents conspired to thwart execution of the presidential directive and the arbiter’s awards: that Arbiter Aguirre, Jr. improperly reduced backwages and allowed reinstatement to a lower position; that Atty. Hagad employed improper legal tactics (e.g., filing the motion for reconsideration of June 9, 1981) to frustrate payment; and that Atty. Evangelista, as personnel manager, by silence participated as a “spineless minion” of the company and counsel.
Respondents answered: Aguirre, Jr. said he complied with due process in allowing ILCOPHIL to present evidence (including its claim that Nilo had gainful employment while dismissed); Hagad maintained that filing motions available to a client is the duty of counsel and that he did not employ underhanded means; Evangelista denied involvement, asserting he was not yet connected with ILCOPHIL at the time of dismissal and had no participation in the case.
The Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation and recommendation (First Division resolution of July 27, 1983). The Bar Confidant submitted a report dated March 1, 1995 recommending dismissal, finding no evidence of m...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did complainants establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the lawyer-respondents and respondent arbiter conspired to perpetuate obstruction of justice or otherwise committed malpractice, gross misconduct, or violations warranting administrative discipline?
- Were the filing of a motion for reconsideration by counsel and the arbiter’s permitting of further proceedings (including reduction of backwages and hearing of ILCOPHIL’s evidence) acts that constituted profes...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)