Malabed vs. De La Pena

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that the respondent, acting as counsel for Fortunato Jadulco and others, knowingly filed a civil action without a valid certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa and instead used a certificate belonging to a complaint filed by the complainant’s brother. The complainant further alleged that the respondent furnished to the Court of Appeals a copy of an Original Certificate of Title, OCT No. 1730, which the complainant did not receive and which the complainant claimed to be fabricated, supporting the allegation with certifications from the DENR and the Registry of Deeds showing no record of OCT No. 1730. The complainant also accused the respondent of conflict of interest for notarizing a deed of donation executed by the complainant’s family and subsequently representing opposing occupants of the same lot. Finally, the complainant alleged that the respondent defied the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public employment imposed by this Court in a prior dismissal, by accepting and performing as Associate Dean and Professor at the NIT-University of Eastern Philippines College of Law and receiving compensation.

Procedural History and Pleadings

The respondent filed a Comment dated 16 December 2007 denying the allegations and asserting that the certification he used was a Lupon endorsement dated 9 May 2001 and that a copy of the free patent was attached to the records in Civil Case No. B-1118 and furnished to opposing counsel. The respondent admitted accepting academic designations but characterized them as temporary and compensated by honoraria only, adding that he had submitted his designation to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the MCLE Office. The parties exchanged a Reply-Affidavit, a Rejoinder, and a Surrejoinder reiterating their contentions. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, noting his use of offensive language in pleadings, misrepresentation concerning the certificate to file action, and violation of the prohibition on reemployment, and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation by Resolution No. XX-2011-137 dated 28 October 2011. The case was thereafter resolved by the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

The sole issue was whether Atty. Meljohn B. De la Pena was guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Use of Foul Language

The Court found that the respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings by referring to the complainant’s counsel as “silahis” and by making disparaging allegations about the complainant’s private life. The respondent maintained that his language was a vigorous defense. The Court rejected that defense, citing the expectation that counsel present arguments with vigor but without abusive or derogatory language, and held that the conduct violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility.

Supreme Court’s Finding on the Certificate to File Action

The Court examined the chronology of Civil Case No. B-1118 and the dates of the Lupon endorsement. The civil complaint was filed on 18 October 2000, while the Certificate of Endorsement the respondent relied upon bore the date 9 May 2001. The Court concluded that the endorsement did not exist at the time of filing and that the respondent therefore misrepresented that a certificate to file action had been obtained prior to instituting the civil action. The Court held that this misrepresentation violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit falsehoods and misrepresentation that mislead the court and the misquoting or misrepresenting of papers.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Non‑furnishing of Title and Fabrication Allegation

The Court found no clear and convincing proof that the respondent deliberately withheld a copy of OCT No. 1730 from opposing counsel or that he fabricated the title. The Court noted that a copy of OCT No. 1730 had been furnished to the Court of Appeals, demonstrating that a copy existed, and observed that the proper remedy for non‑furnishing was a motion in the appellate court. The DENR and Registry certifications showing no file for OCT No. 1730 did not by themselves prove that the respondent manufactured the title. The Court treated the question of fabrication as a factual dispute beyond the proper scope of the administrative proceeding absent proof that the respondent orchestrated the fabrication.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Conflict of Interest and Alleged Connivance

The Court distinguished notarial acts from legal representation and refused to equate the respondent’s notarization of a deed with an incapacity to represent opposing parties absent a showing of legal disqualification. The Court further described the complainant’s allegations of collusion between the respondent and Judge Enrique C. Asis as bare and unsupported by evidence. The Court noted that charges of judicial bias are matters properly directed against the judge and that the complainant failed to substantiate any conspiracy between the respondent and the judge.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Violation of Prohibition Against Reemployment in Government Office

The Court recalled its prior disposition in A.M. No. MTJ-92-687 (9 February 1994) dismissing the respondent as judge with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office. The Court held that the prohibition did not distinguish between temporary and permanent appointments and that the respondent’s acceptance of designation and receipt of co