Case Digest (A.C. No. 12622)
Facts:
Wilma L. Zamora v. Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, A.C. No. 12622 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4651), February 10, 2020, First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Wilma L. Zamora (Zamora) filed a verified complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay (Atty. Mahinay), alleging that language in a motion for reconsideration he filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City amounted to a threat against the presiding judge and therefore violated Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The underlying civil matter involved PJH Lending Corporation as plaintiff in an action for forcible entry before the MeTC, Branch 59; the MeTC rendered judgment for PJH Lending Corporation, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212 affirmed on appeal and remanded to the MeTC for proper disposition. After PJH sought execution, the MeTC through Assisting Judge John Benedict Medina granted the motion for execution. Atty. Mahinay, representing defendants, filed a motion for reconsideration which, among other enumerations, stated that the court should not be “partial” and that defendants were furnishing a copy of the motion to the Court Administrator as they “reserve to upgrade their above perceived violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to a formal administrative complaint.” Zamora characterized that passage as a threat to the judge and filed the IBP disbarment complaint.
In his answer, Atty. Mahinay said the charge lacked basis, asserted the motion for reconsideration was a proper, candid communication to the court, and noted that Zamora had previously filed many administrative charges against him. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal, finding the allegedly abusive statements were directed in a pleading to the court and that Zamora submitted no sworn witnesses or documentary proof that Atty. Mahinay intended to threaten the judge. The IBP Board of Governors initially adopted that recommendation in Resolution No. XXII-2016-266 (April 29, 2016) and dismissed the complaint.
Zamora moved for reconsideration before the Board and furnished additional pleadings allegedly showing a pattern of similar conduct by Atty. Mahinay. On January 27, 2017, the Board issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-814 granting Zamora’s motion, finding that Atty. Mahinay had committed brazen threats against the courts and imposing suspension for six months for violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03. In an Extended Resolution prepared by IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Director Ramon S. Esguerra, the Board emphasized that hinting the judge was partial and threatening administrative action promoted distrust in the administration of justice.
Atty. Mahinay filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration, arguing the Board should not have reopened matters already considered and that the present charge must stand or fall on its own. On August 29, 2018, the Board issued a new Resolution (Extended R...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the IBP’s dismissal of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay supported by the required quantum of proof in administrative disciplinary proceedings?
- Did the language used in Atty. Mahinay’s motion for reconsideration constitute an actionable threat or disrespect in violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of P...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)