Title
Malabed vs. De La Pena
Case
A.C. No. 7594
Decision Date
Feb 9, 2016
Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña suspended for two years for gross misconduct, including misrepresentation, improper language, and violating reemployment prohibition after dismissal as a judge.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7594)

Allegations in the Complaint

  1. Misrepresentation of “Certificate to File Action” in Civil Case No. B-1118, using a certificate issued for another litigant.
  2. Failure to furnish opposing counsel with a copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730, allegedly fabricating the title.
  3. Conflict of interest: notarizing a family land-donation deed, then representing opposing occupants of the same property.
  4. Conspiracy with RTC Judge Enrique C. Asis to secure favorable rulings.
  5. Grave misconduct: accepting government positions (Associate Dean and Professor at NIT-UEP College of Law) despite accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public employment following dismissal as a judge.

Respondent’s Defense

• The Certificate to File Action was a May 9, 2001 endorsement by Lupon Chairman Rodulfo Catigbe, used for Case No. B-1118.
• A copy of OCT No. 1730 was attached to the Court of Appeals record and furnished to opposing counsel.
• Notarization is not legal representation; no conflict of interest.
• No proof of conspiracy with Judge Asis; bias claims should be raised against the judge.
• Appointment as Associate Dean/Professor was temporary; only honoraria were received; no salary.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

• Noted use of offensive language in pleadings (“silahis,” allegations of cohabitation).
• Found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for:

  1. Submitting a misassigned Certificate to File Action.
  2. Failing to furnish OCT No. 1730 to opposing counsel.
  3. Accepting government employment post-dismissal.
    • Recommended one-year suspension from law practice.

Issue

Whether respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Foul Language

• Respondent’s abusive and irrelevant language violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 (lawyer shall not use abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language).

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Certificate to File Action

• Complaint for quieting title filed October 18, 2000; endorsement dated May 9, 2001 did not exist at filing.
• Misrepresentation violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 (no falsehood or misleading of the court).

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Failure to Furnish Title

• No deliberate withholding proven; remedy was a motion to obtain copy.
• Allegation of fabrication requires fact-finding beyond administrative scope; DENR/Registry certifications only show absence in their files, not fabrication by respondent.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Conflict of Interest Claims

• Notarization is a ministerial act distinct from legal representation.
• Accusations of collusion with Judge Asis unsubstantiated; bias charges lie against the judge, not counsel.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Prohibition on Reemployment

• Final accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification applies regardless of temporary status or honoraria basis.
• Fu

    ...continue reading

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