Case Summary (G.R. No. 165770)
Procedural History and Allegations
A resolution concerning the dispute was initially made by the Comelec's First Division on July 18, 2007, favoring Osabel. However, after the dispute was brought before the Comelec En Banc, a resolution dated November 6, 2007, reinstated the certification of nomination for Marcoleta’s faction. Despite this, the Comelec mandated a re-hearing due to the failure to achieve a required majority vote, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the First Division's ruling. Marcoleta's complaint alleges that Borra and Brawner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross negligence, thus subverting the will of the voters.
Allegations of Misconduct
The complaint asserts that the respondents delayed the decision beyond the five-day requirement set by Comelec’s rules and that they manipulated the proceedings by changing the issue for resolution, leading to a ruling outside the jurisdiction of the Comelec. Additionally, Marcoleta claims respondents failed to properly cite legal bases in their Omnibus Resolution and made erroneous conclusions without due consideration of the Party's Constitution and By-Laws.
Responses from Respondents
In their defense, both Borra and Brawner contended that as members of a constitutional body, they are insulated from disbarment complaints and that disbarment should only follow an impeachment process. Borra maintained that the proceedings' validity awaited higher review, and both respondents argued that their actions were subject to internal Comelec rules rather than the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
The complaint pivots on alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and statutory provisions related to public officials' conduct. Respondents contended that since they serve as quasi-judicial officers, the relevant codes did not apply in the same manner as they would for judges. Borra’s retirement prior to the complaint resolution raised questions regarding jurisdiction and relevance, particularly concerning Brawner, who had passed away.
Court's Findings and Conclusion
The Court adjudicated that an impeachable officer such as Borra, who is also a member of the Bar, cannot face disbarment without first undergoing the impeachment process
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165770)
Background of the Case
- The case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta against Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner of the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
- The complaint accused the respondents of violating multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics, as well as Republic Act No. 6713, which pertains to the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
- The dispute arose during the 2007 National and Local Elections when two factions, led by Marcoleta and Diogenes S. Osabel, submitted separate lists of nominees for the party-list group Alagad.
Dispute and Resolutions
- The Comelec's First Division initially resolved the dispute in favor of Osabel in an Omnibus Resolution dated July 18, 2007.
- This resolution was later reversed by the Comelec En Banc, reinstating Marcoleta's group, but could not achieve the necessary majority vote for finality, leading to a re-hearing.
- Ultimately, the Comelec's First Division's Omnibus Resolution was affirmed after the re-hearing failed to yield a majority.
Allegations Against Respondents
- Marcoleta alleged that Borra and Brawner acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross negligence in the manner they handled the case.
- Specific claims include