A.C. No. 8168 - Spouses Buffe vs. Gonzalez

On 15 July 2008, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Karen M. Silverio-Buffe as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon province.
On 15 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe took her oath of office before Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, administered by Judge Jesusa P. Maningas.
Copies of her oath of office were furnished to the Office of the President, the Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

On 19 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe reported for work at the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Romblon.
A letter dated 26 August 2008 from Romblon Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio R.M. Almadin requested confirmation of her appointment from former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez.
On 19 December 2008, Gonzalez issued a Memorandum Order directing Silverio-Buffe to cease and desist from acting as prosecutor, citing a lack of official appointment and warning of charges for usurpation of public office.

On 11 February 2009, Silverio-Buffe, together with her husband Edwin B. Buffe, filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
The complaint alleged that former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona, allegedly acting out of spite or revenge, influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. to refuse to administer her oath of office and to withhold the transmittal of her appointment papers to the DOJ.
Allegations were made that Madrona’s action was motivated by personal animosity due to her involvement in a separate civil case regarding a radio broadcast contract.

The transmission of Silverio-Buffe’s appointment papers from the Malacanang Records Office on 1 August 2008 and their receipt by a DOJ clerk.
Interactions with personnel from the Personnel Division of the DOJ, with inquiries about possible “connections” with the Office of the Secretary.
An introduction to Gonzalez on 14 August 2008, where it was revealed that Madrona opposed her appointment.

Despite repeated letters from Silverio-Buffe pleading for the transmittal of her appointment documents, no response was forthcoming from Gonzalez.
Later discussions with Exconde at the DOJ on 13 November 2008 further revealed attempts to resolve the impasse, including suggestions for Silverio-Buffe to address Madrona directly—a move she ultimately rejected due to differences in principles.

On 15 April 2009, the Court, through its First Division, required the respondents to comment on the complaint.
In a series of comments and counter-complaints by the involved parties (Madrona, Gonzalez, and Exconde), issues of jurisdiction, allegations of bad faith, and accusations of improper conduct surfaced.
On 21 October 2009, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The IBP’s Investigating Commissioner initially found merit in the complaint and recommended a penalty of censure against the respondents.
However, on 28 June 2012, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this recommendation, dismissing the case for lack of merit—a decision later upheld upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

Complainants eventually filed a petition before the Court after the IBP’s resolutions.
The Court’s subsequent ruling addressed the issue of proper jurisdiction in handling the administrative complaint, leading to further directives regarding the appropriate venue for disciplinary actions.

Whether the disciplinary complaint against respondents—former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez, former Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., and former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona—should be administratively pursued based on the allegations and the evidence presented.

Whether the acts of withholding Silverio-Buffe’s appointment papers and refusing to administer her oath of office constitute unethical conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer’s Oath, and various statutes (notably RA 6713, RA 3019, and applicable civil service laws).

Whether the jurisdiction to discipline government lawyers in such matters falls within the authority of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Office of the Ombudsman.

The impact of procedural issues, including allegations of forum-shopping and the proper venue for addressing administrative complaints against public officers.