Case Summary (A.C. No. 12486)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: Antonio X. Genato, who invested ₱18 million in a disputed parcel of land
Respondent: Atty. Eligio P. Mallari, accused of deceit, abuse of court processes, and disrespect toward judicial officers
Key Dates
Investigation Report: December 4, 2017
IBP Board Resolution: Adopted findings with penalty recommendations
Supreme Court Decision: October 15, 2019
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (freedom of access to courts; duty to uphold law)
– Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sections 20 and 27 (lawyer’s obligations; grounds for disbarment)
– Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 1, 10, 11, 12 (candor, fairness, respect, non-delay)
– Lawyer’s Oath (fidelity to court and clients; no falsehood; no unwarranted delay)
Factual Background
Respondent and wife claimed title to a 133-hectare property allegedly acquired by judgment. Genato invested ₱18 million, was to receive proceeds from resale of 33 hectares, but later learned the land belonged to the Philippine National Bank and was earmarked for land reform. Genato’s criminal estafa complaint against Mallari was dismissed and is under DOJ review.
The Complaint
Genato alleged that Mallari:
• Repeatedly flouted Supreme Court directives in GSIS v. Mallari for 24 years to evade debt enforcement.
• Employed dilatory maneuvers in Banco Filipino v. Mallari to avoid a writ of possession.
• Published a public challenge to Court of Appeals Justice Bruselas for a “televised debate,” undermining judicial dignity.
• Filed baseless suits against PNB lawyers and Pampanga’s Register of Deeds.
These acts demonstrated disregard for Rules of Court, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s Answer
Mallari denied bad faith, contending that all his actions were legitimate defenses of his proprietary rights. He claimed the debate challenge was appropriate because he considered the resolution “void,” and characterized Genato’s complaint as harassment.
Findings of the Committee on Integrity and Bar Discipline
- Public challenge to Justice Bruselas violated Rule 138, Sec. 20, and Canons 1, 10.03, 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Willful disregard of writ of possession in G.R. No. 157660 transgressed Rule 10.03, Canon 10.
- Dilatory tactics in G.R. No. 157659 against GSIS breached Rule 10.03, Canon 10.
- Frivolous suits against PNB lawyers had insufficient proof for further discipline.
Recommendation: Six-month suspension, considering respondent’s age and passion in defense.
Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
Adopted the Committee’s findings with modification: two successive six-month suspensions—one for general misconduct and one for delaying writ execution and disrespect to the trial court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Obligation to Obey Law and Not Abuse Processes
Under Rule 10.03, Canon 10, lawyers must observe procedural rules and avoid misuse to defeat justice. Mallari’s repeated appeals and petitions after final judgments constituted an abuse of process, delaying rightful enforcement of writs of possession and frustrating the objectives of the Rules of Court for prompt disposition.
Duty to Respect Judicial Authority
Rule 138, Sec. 20 and Code Canon 11 require respect for courts and justices. A public challenge to debate a sitting justice falls outside lawful remedies and diminishes public confidence in the judiciary. Such conduct violates Rule 11.05’s mandate to submit grievances only through proper channels.
Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
The Lawyer’s Oath, reiterated in Rule 138, Sec. 27, binds attorneys to uphold the Constitution, obey lawful orders, avoid falsehoods, and not dela
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12486)
Prefatory Observations
- Disciplinary proceedings in the legal profession consider the totality of circumstances, not mere mechanical application of rules.
- The Court treats pleadings with an appreciation of the legal community’s close-knit character.
- Such cases are likened to perceiving the wind by its effects—subtle yet profound.
Statement of the Case
- Complainant: Antonio X. Genato seeks disbarment of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari.
- Alleged Violations: Deliberate disregard for the Rules of Court, prevailing jurisprudence, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Procedural Posture: Filed as A.C. No. 12486; decided En Banc on October 15, 2019, via Decision per curiam.
Allegations of the Complainant
- Ownership Claim: Respondent and spouse asserted title over a 133-hectare property in San Fernando, Pampanga, allegedly acquired by prior judgment.
- Investment Scheme: Complainant advanced ₱18 million, given exclusive power to sell 33 hectares, with all proceeds to him.
- Discovery of True Title: Property belonged to Philippine National Bank and was earmarked for land reform beneficiaries.
- Criminal Action: Complainant’s estafa complaint (I.S. No. XV-03-INV-13D-04135) was dismissed and is under DOJ review.
- Additional Instances of Misconduct:
- Employed dilatory tactics in “Mallari v. GSIS” to evade a 24-year-old debt, prompting a CBD investigation.
- Published paid ads challenging CA Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. to a “public and televised debate” in “PNB v. Mallari, et al.”
- Delayed enforcement of a writ of possession in G.R. No. 157660 (“Mallari v. Banco Filipino”).
- Filed frivolous harassment suits against PNB lawyers and Pampanga Register of Deeds; petitions dismissed.
- Pattern: Habitual harassment of judges, court personnel, opposing counsel, and clients through frivolous submissions and tactics.
Respondent’s Defenses
- Denied all allegations, asserting