Case Summary (A.C. No. 9120)
Factual Background
Complainant Augusto P. Baldado was a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sulat, Eastern Samar who sought reelection in May 2004. Florentino C. Nival, a losing candidate, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Branch 2, docketed as Civil Case No. 3900, alleging that Baldado was an American citizen and therefore unqualified. Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica appeared as counsel for Baldado, filed an Answer, and subsequently pursued pretrial motions challenging jurisdiction and filing fees before the trial court.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
The trial court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground that a motion to dismiss is proscribed after an Answer is filed, citing Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of notice of hearing under Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15, and a second motion for reconsideration was denied as a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52. On May 6, 2005, the trial court rendered a Decision directing a writ of quo warranto and ousting Complainant Augusto P. Baldado from the Sangguniang Bayan on the ground that he reacquired Philippine residency only on September 29, 2003, insufficient for the one-year residency requirement preceding the May 2004 election.
Post-Decision Events and COMELEC Proceedings
Respondent received a copy of the trial court Decision on May 19, 2005. He did not file a notice of appeal to the COMELEC within five days but filed on May 26, 2005 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief before the COMELEC, assailing the trial court’s earlier resolutions denying the motions for reconsideration. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit on May 16, 2006, finding that proper filing fees had been paid by Nival and that the appropriate remedy after a court decision was an appeal to the COMELEC under Section 14, Rule 36. The COMELEC en banc denied reconsideration on June 21, 2007, and the trial court thereafter granted execution, resulting in Baldado’s removal on July 11, 2005.
Filing of Administrative Complaint with the IBP
On July 17, 2006, Complainant Augusto P. Baldado filed a Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica with gross incompetence, gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law for failing to timely appeal the trial court Decision and for other alleged procedural errors in handling the quo warranto case, invoking Canon 17 and Canon 18 and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant’s Allegations
Complainant alleged that respondent committed serious errors: he filed a motion to dismiss after filing an Answer; he filed a motion for reconsideration without attaching a notice of hearing; he filed a prohibited second motion for reconsideration; and crucially, he refused to file a notice of appeal from the trial court Decision despite urgings from the client and client’s wife, electing instead to file certiorari before the COMELEC, thereby losing the opportunity to preserve Baldado’s office and causing grave damage.
Respondent’s Position and Defenses
Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica explained that he filed a motion to dismiss after the Answer because he discovered days later that the opposing party had failed to pay the correct filing fee. He invoked Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court as an exception to the general rule on motions to dismiss, arguing that lack of jurisdiction may be raised notwithstanding the filing of an Answer. He admitted inadvertence in failing to place a notice of hearing on his motion for reconsideration but argued that the adverse party’s opposition demonstrated opportunity to be heard. He maintained that he acted in good faith and on the legal view that the five-day period to file an appeal under Section 14, Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules had not commenced because the trial court had not promulgated its Decision in open court, citing Section 12, Rule 36.
IBP Investigation, Recommendation and Board Action
The Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Salvador B. Hababag, found respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and gross negligence and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-234 dated November 10, 2007, imposing a six-month suspension with warning. The Board denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. XIX-2011-370 dated June 26, 2011.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court confronted whether respondent’s failure to appeal the trial court Decision to the COMELEC within the five-day period warranted disciplinary sanction for violation of Canon 18 and associated Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and whether respondent’s other procedural choices and omissions constituted gross incompetence, gross negligence or gross ignorance of the law.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis on Promulgation and Appeal Period
The Court examined the law on promulgation and appeal to the COMELEC, including Section 12 and Section 14, Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules and the Court’s precedent in Lindo v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 95016, February 11, 1991). The Supreme Court reiterated that promulgation occurs upon delivery or filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court and that the additional COMELEC requirement of notice in advance of promulgation is not essential to the act of promulgation. Consequently, the five-day period to appeal commenced upon receipt of a copy of the decision on May 19, 2005, and respondent’s failure to file an appeal within that period was a dereliction.
Supreme Court’s Consideration of Motions to Dismiss After Answer
The Court noted that existing jurisprudence in Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation permits filing a motion to dismiss after an Answer on limited grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The Court observed that respondent could have raised the jurisdictional argument on appeal to the COMELEC even if the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The failure to pursue the available appeal therefore constituted a failure to protect the client’s rights.
Breach of Professional Responsibility and Applicable Rules
The Court found that respondent’s omission violated Canon 18: Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, because he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and failed to render competent and diligen
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9120)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Augusto P. Baldado was the complainant who was removed from the office of Sangguniang Bayan member after a quo warranto decision by the RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch Two.
- Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica was the respondent attorney who represented complainant in the quo warranto proceedings and was charged before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline.
- The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation and suspended respondent for six months.
- The IBP Board of Governors denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court reviewed and acted upon the IBP resolution.
Key Factual Allegations
- Florentino C. Nival filed a Petition for Quo Warranto against complainant alleging that complainant was an American citizen and therefore ineligible to be a candidate.
- Respondent filed an Answer, later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on alleged failure of petitioner to pay proper filing or docket fees, and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied.
- The trial court rendered a Decision dated May 6, 2005, ousting complainant from office for failure to meet residency requirements after reacquisition of Philippine citizenship on September 29, 2003.
- Respondent received a copy of the trial court Decision on May 19, 2005, was urged by complainant to file a notice of appeal on May 21, 2005, but instead filed a Petition for Certiorari with the COMELEC on May 26, 2005 attacking prior trial court resolutions.
- The COMELEC dismissed respondent’s certiorari petition for lack of merit on May 16, 2006, and complainant was removed from office on July 11, 2005 pursuant to execution.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent committed gross incompetence, gross negligence, and gross ignorance of the law for failing to file an appeal with the COMELEC from the trial court Decision within the reglementary period.
- Whether respondent’s filing of a motion to dismiss after filing an Answer and his failures regarding notice of hearing and motions for reconsideration constituted professional misconduct.
- Whether respondent’s reliance on the absence of formal promulgation tolled the five-day period to appeal under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Contentions of the Parties
- Complainant contended that respondent’s procedural errors and failure to timely appeal caused loss of office and constituted violations of Canon 17 and Canon 18: Rules 18.01, 18.02, and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment or suspension.
- Respondent contended that the decision had not been formally promulgated and thus the five-day appeal period had not commenced, that his motion to dismiss remained available because lack of jurisdiction may be raised despite an Answer under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, and that failure to set a notice of hearing in his motion for reconsideration was inadvertent.
Lower Proceedings
- The Investigati