Case Summary (G.R. No. 194897)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Relevant events alleged in the record include the barangay hearing on August 14, 2014, the filing of Malecdan’s complaint with the IBP Baguio‑Benguet Chapter on August 18, 2014, subsequent IBP proceedings (conciliation conference set for September 12, 2014; endorsement to CBD‑IBP on September 15, 2014), CBD‑IBP orders and mandatory conference notices (notice dated January 14, 2015; conferences in February–March 2015), Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation of June 2, 2015, IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution of June 20, 2015, and the Supreme Court’s final disposition upholding the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation.
Applicable Law and Jurisprudential Authorities
Primary statutory provision: Section 9, P.D. No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay) — “In all proceedings provided for herein, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.” Professional standards: Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1; Rule 1.01). Constitutional context: the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing fundamental law for decisions rendered after 1990. Controlling jurisprudence relied upon in the resolution: Ledesma v. Court of Appeals (286 Phil. 917 (1992)) and cited administrative disciplinary authorities (Maniquiz v. Atty. Emelo; Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco) and a cited Minister of Justice opinion (No. 135, s. 1981) interpreting the exclusivity of statutory exceptions.
Factual Background
Malecdan initiated a barangay complaint for estafa, breach of contract, and damages against spouses James and Josephine Baldo and attended the barangay hearing. On August 14, 2014, Atty. Baldo appeared during the barangay proceedings purportedly as counsel for the spouses. Malecdan alleges that he objected to the lawyer’s presence and that Atty. Baldo’s participation was secured by persuasion of barangay officials, resulting in an inequitable situation where the spouses were effectively represented while the complainant appeared without counsel.
Respondent’s Account and Admissions
Atty. Baldo admitted presence at the barangay hearing but characterized his involvement as seeking and obtaining permission from the officer‑in‑charge and from the complainant (Malecdan) to join a dialogue stage of the proceedings, claiming that the complainant knew him from prior meetings and consented to his participation. The respondent described the interaction as an attempt at amicable settlement and asserted that he asked for permission before joining discussions.
IBP Investigative Proceedings and Recommendations
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, after allowing supplemental pleadings and hearings, found the language of Section 9 of P.D. 1508 not sufficiently definite to unambiguously bar lawyer appearance and concluded that the matter was largely one of propriety and discretion. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Baldo be given a warning, noting the respondent’s lack of propriety but declining to impose a more severe disciplinary sanction.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
The IBP Board of Governors reviewed the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation, reversed it, and resolved that Atty. Baldo’s appearance as counsel in a Katarungang Pambarangay hearing warranted a reprimand rather than mere warning. The Board considered the prohibition of lawyer participation in Section 9 to be mandatory and concluded that the violation merited formal reprimand.
Legal Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether Atty. Simpson T. Baldo’s appearance and participation as counsel in a barangay hearing violated Section 9 of P.D. No. 1508 and, if so, whether such conduct constituted a breach of the lawyer’s duties under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility such as to warrant disciplinary sanction.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Mandatory Nature of Section 9
The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that Section 9 is mandatory in barring lawyers from appearing before the Lupon. It adopted the rationale in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals that personal, counsel‑free confrontation between the parties promotes spontaneity and disposition toward amicable settlement, and that the express statutory exceptions (minors and incompetents assisted by next of kin who are not lawyers) are exclusive under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alteri
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194897)
Title, Citation and Panel
- Case reported at 834 Phil. 193, Second Division, A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322), decided June 27, 2018.
- Parties: Complainant — Celestino Malecdan; Respondent — Atty. Simpson T. Baldo.
- Decision authored by Justice Caguioa. Decision concurred in by Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Reyes, Jr., JJ.
Primary Legal Provision at Issue
- Section 9, Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law): "Appearance of parties in person. - In all proceedings provided for herein, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers." (Emphasis supplied in source).
- Alleged violation: respondent lawyer’s participation in proceedings before the Lupon (Punong Barangay) in contravention of Section 9.
Factual Antecedents — Barangay Proceeding and Initial Events
- Malecdan filed a barangay complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and Damages against spouses James and Josephine Baldo before the Lupon of Barangay Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet.
- On August 14, 2014, Atty. Simpson T. Baldo appeared as counsel for spouses Baldo during the barangay hearing before the Punong Barangay.
- Complainant Malecdan alleged that Atty. Baldo's presence was contrary to Section 9 and that he vehemently objected to Atty. Baldo’s presence during the barangay proceedings.
IBP Baguio–Benguet Chapter Proceedings and Administrative Complaint
- On August 18, 2014, Malecdan filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter seeking sanctions against Atty. Baldo for violating Section 9 of P.D. 1508. [reference in source: Complaint-Affidavit]
- On August 20, 2014, the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter Committee on Ethics furnished Atty. Baldo a copy of the complaint and set a conciliation conference for September 12, 2014.
- After failure to settle at conciliation, on September 15, 2014, the Complaint was endorsed to the Committee on Bar Discipline–IBP (CBD-IBP).
CBD-IBP Procedural Steps and Scheduling
- CBD-IBP issued an Order dated September 17, 2014, requiring Atty. Baldo to submit a duly verified Answer within fifteen (15) days.
- On January 14, 2015, the CBD-IBP issued a Notice setting a mandatory conference/hearing for February 18, 2015.
- Malecdan filed his Mandatory Conference Brief on February 12, 2015.
- The mandatory conference was re-scheduled from February 23, 2015 to March 24, 2015 after Atty. Baldo failed to attend the February date.
Atty. Baldo’s Answer — Admissions and Explanation
- In his Answer dated February 23, 2015, Atty. Baldo admitted presence during the barangay proceedings and explained the circumstances as follows (paraphrased from the Answer in the record):
- He requested permission from the officer-in-charge before entering the barangay session hall to be allowed to talk with complainant and his uncle (James Baldo) in an attempt to amicably settle the matter; permission was granted because the proceeding was still in the "dialogue stage."
- Upon entering, he again asked permission from complainant and his companion (Laila Alumno) to join the dialogue with James Baldo to facilitate amicable settlement; complainant allowed this.
- Complainant purportedly knew respondent from a previous meeting at the office of complainant’s lawyer (Atty. Melissa Quitan-Corpuz) concerning the same case, and thus complainant "readily permitted and allowed" the parties to have a dialogue with respondent present and without barangay officials. (Emphasis in source)
Complainant’s Verified Supplemental Complaint Affidavit
- Investigating Commissioner gave Malecdan 15 days to file a supplemental complaint (Order dated March 24, 2015).
- On March 31, 2015, Malecdan filed a Verified Supplemental Complaint Affidavit in which he:
- Reiterated his vehement objection to Atty. Baldo’s presence at the barangay proceedings.
- Alleged that "Using his influence as a lawyer, Atty. Baldo prevailed upon the Punong Barangay and the Barangay Sec