A.C. No. 188 - Ricarda Gabriel de Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag

The case involves Ricarda Gabriel de Bumanglag as the complainant and Esteban T. Bumanglag as the respondent.
The respondent, a lawyer, was found guilty of gross immoral conduct by the Court’s decision rendered on September 24, 1973, which resulted in his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by the respondent were denied through several resolutions issued on November 20, 1973; December 19, 1973; January 9, 1974; and October 30, 1974.

On March 31, 1975, the Clerk of Court received a 1st Indorsement dated February 21, 1975 from then Assistant Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora.

This indorsement included a petition from the respondent directed to the President of the Philippines.
In the petition, the respondent requested that the President promulgate a decree setting aside the Supreme Court’s decision and allow him to become an active member of the New Society.
The petition alleged that the respondent was deprived of due process as established in the Court’s earlier decision and displayed a gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution.

The Court, by its Resolution of June 16, 1975, directed the Clerk of Court to forward copies of:

The decision of September 24, 1973, where a majority vote imposed a lesser penalty (suspension) instead of disbarment.
The resolutions of November 20, 1973 and December 19, 1973 which denied the respondent’s motions for reconsideration.

Additionally, the same resolution required the respondent to show cause within ten (10) days why he should not face further disciplinary action for:

Making false statements and misrepresentations in his petition to the President.
Displaying gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution by seeking a decree to set aside the Court’s decision.

On June 18, 1975, a 2nd Indorsement was issued by Assistant Executive Secretary Zamora and received by the Clerk on the same day.

This document forwarded the respondent’s letter to the President in which he expressed that he had realized he made “a big mistake” by submitting the petition.
The respondent acknowledged that his action might be interpreted as challenging the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court, thus breaching the doctrine of separation of powers.

That he had immediately withdrawn his petition.
That he finally appreciated that the Chief Executive does not have the authority to set aside or modify the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court.
He apologized for his actions and assured that nothing similar would recur in the future.

The respondent duly served his two-year suspension, as recorded in the Court’s Resolution of November 7, 1975.
Despite his apology and acknowledgment of his transgression, the respondent’s record remained tarnished by his earlier misconduct.

Whether the respondent’s petition to the President challenging the Supreme Court’s decision infringed upon the established principle of the separation of powers.
Whether seeking presidential intervention to set aside a decision that was final and executory was legally permissible.

Whether the respondent compounded his misconduct by making false statements and misrepresentations in his petition.
Whether his assertion that the Court’s motions for reconsideration were “only denied by the Clerk of Court” indicated a lack of appreciation of established judicial procedures.

Whether, in view of the respondent’s apology and subsequent service of his suspension, a mere reprimand with a stern warning would suffice as an appropriate penalty.
Whether the respondent’s actions warranted more severe disciplinary measures given his “unenviable record” and demonstrable ignorance of the law and the Constitution.