A.C. No. 12005 - Tabuzo vs. Gomos

Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo (complainant) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos (respondent), who was a Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint alleged several violations including constitutional provisions, Rules of Court, Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713).
Allegations include nonfeasance for failing to institute disciplinary action against another lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, and aggravating circumstances such as a pattern of misconduct and betrayal of trust as Commissioner.

The controversy arose from an earlier administrative case (CBD Case No. 12-3457) filed by Lucille G. Sillo against the complainant.
The respondent was assigned to investigate and issue a report and recommendation.
On August 15, 2014, respondent recommended a reprimand for complainant’s improper communication and offensive language in pleadings.
The IBP Board approved this recommendation in Resolution No. XXI-2015-074 dated January 31, 2015.

Failing to act with dispatch, causing delay (174 days from submission of last pleading to report issuance).
Being cruel and heartless by mutilating pleadings and misrepresenting complainant’s statements to the Board.
Nonfeasance by refusing to institute disciplinary action against another lawyer despite prior knowledge.
Gross ignorance of specific laws and procedural rules.

Complainant alleged respondent violated Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and related rules (Rules 1.01, 1.02, 3.01, 3.02, 3.04).

Respondent denied allegations and asserted that delays were caused by complainant’s excessive motions and pleadings.
He stated the report and recommendation were based on law and facts and were adopted by the IBP Board.
Complainant could have sought relief by filing a motion for reconsideration instead of an administrative complaint.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit, stating the complaint really assailed the report and recommendation which had already been approved.
The IBP Board denied complainant’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the complaint.

Whether the respondent, as IBP Commissioner, may be held administratively liable like judges or government officials.
Whether respondent can be held administratively liable for an adverse decision as an IBP investigating commissioner.

Can the respondent, an IBP Commissioner, be held administratively liable in the same manner as judges and other government officials?
Is an administrative complaint the proper remedy against an IBP Commissioner for his investigative report and recommendation in an administrative case against a lawyer?