Case Summary (A.C. No. 11600)
Relevant Events
The complainant was elected Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in May 2013, subsequently facing an election protest from his opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, eventually ruled in favor of Villarosa. The RTC issued an order on January 15, 2014, granting execution pending appeal, which prompted the complainant to seek a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC granted the TRO, effectively enjoining the RTC from enforcing its order. However, the respondent, acting as counsel for Villarosa, filed multiple manifestations to the RTC Clerk of Court, insisting on the issuance of the writ of execution, contrary to the TRO.
Ethical Violations Alleged
The complainant contended that the respondent's actions amounted to ethical violations by misleading the Clerk of Court to disregard the TRO from COMELEC and the RTC’s subsequent order, thereby violating Canons 1, 10, 15, and 19 of the CPR. These canons emphasize adherence to the law, fairness in dealings with colleagues, and the ethical obligations of lawyers towards their clients and the judicial system.
Respondent's Defense
In response, the respondent argued that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction over the matter subsequent to the case's records being transmitted to the COMELEC. He asserted that his manifestations to the Clerk of Court were an honest belief that the TRO lost effect because it was issued after the expiration of the twenty-day period for securing it. The respondent also contended that he was fulfilling his duty under Canon 18 of the CPR, representing his client diligently.
IBP Findings and Recommendations
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent's actions were inappropriate. It was noted that the five manifestations he submitted actually functioned as motions and should have been served on the other party with a notice of hearing. The investigator highlighted that the respondent acted in bad faith and violated due process by failing to inform the opposing party of his filings or affording them a chance to oppose.
Court Proceedings and Resolution
The IBP's Report and Recommendation recommended a six-month suspension for the respondent. However, the IBP Board of Governors later upheld this recommendation. Following a reconsideration motion from the respondent, and after several procedural discussions, his petition for review was found unnecessary due to the amended procedures under Rule 139-B, which affirmed the Court's authority to take final action regarding lawyer discipline without additional motions from the respondent
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 11600)
Overview of the Case
- The administrative case arises from an affidavit-complaint filed by Romulo De Mesa Festin against Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The complaint alleges gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by the respondent.
Background Facts
- Romulo De Mesa Festin was elected Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in the May 2013 elections.
- His opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa, filed an election protest which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided in Villarosa’s favor.
- An order on January 15, 2014, from the RTC allowed the issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal after a specified period if no restraining order was obtained.
Legal Proceedings Initiated by Complainant
- Distressed by the RTC decision, Festin filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the RTC's order.
- On February 13, 2014, the COMELEC issued a TRO preventing the RTC from enforcing its January 15 order.
- The RTC subsequently issued an order on February 25, 2014, stating that no Writ of Execution should be issued.
Actions of the Respondent
- Despite the TRO, Atty. Zubiri filed multiple manifestations urging the Clerk of Court (COC) to issue the writ, without serving copies to the opposing party.
- He argued that the twenty-day period for obtaining a restraining order had lapsed and that the TRO only bound the RT