Title
Chan Shun Kuen vs. Coloma-Javier
Case
A.C. No. 9831
Decision Date
Mar 9, 2016
A labor dispute led to a final NLRC ruling against CEC, prompting its CEO to file baseless disbarment complaints against NLRC officials, which the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of merit and admonished the complainant for abuse of judicial process.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9831)

Procedural Background

CEC failed to appeal the decision against it, allowing it to become final and executory. Following this, the complainants moved for execution, resulting in the issuance of a Writ of Execution that led to the sheriff levying property owned by CEC. Despite filing multiple motions and appeals before the NLRC, CEC's efforts were ruled against at every instance. Consequently, the complainant resorted to filing a series of complaints, both administrative and criminal, against the NLRC respondents.

Allegations and Claims

In the verified complaint for disbarment, the complainant alleged that the respondents conspired in drafting the NLRC's decision dated October 16, 2007, and claimed that the signature of Commissioner Tito F. Genilo had been forged. The respondents, on their part, contended that the complaint stemmed from a series of frivilous suits initiated by the complainant and characterized the allegations as malicious and without merit, alleging that the complainant was engaging in forum shopping.

Legal Standards for Disbarment

The resolution addressed the standard for disbarment, indicating that it rests on a determination of serious professional misconduct that demonstrates a lawyer's unfitness to serve as an officer of the court. The complainant bears the burden of proof, required to substantiate claims with clear and convincing evidence. The Court is mandated to act on disciplinary matters only when allegations are supported by preponderant evidence.

Court's Findings

After evaluating the complaint, the Court determined that the claims presented by the complainant lacked substance. The allegations regarding collusion and forgery were unsubstantiated, as no credible evidence was produced to support the claims. The specific instances of misconduct alleged were deemed mere accusations without sufficient factual backing to warrant serious legal action against the respondents.

Repetition of Previous Complaints

It was noted that the instant disbarment complaint was, in effect, a repetition of previous complaints against the same respondents that had already been dismissed by the Court for lack of merit. The Court considered the repetitiveness of the c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.