A.C. No. 12005 - Tabuzo vs. Gomos

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12005)

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

The 1987 Philippine Constitution empowers the Supreme Court under Article VIII, Section 5(5) to promulgate rules concerning the integrated bar and the practice of law. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is a sui generis public institution created through legislative acts (R.A. No. 6397 and P.D. No. 181) and court rulings (notably In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines). The IBP exercises quasi-judicial functions delegated by the Supreme Court to regulate the legal profession and administer disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. IBP officers, including Commissioners, are private practitioners tasked with performing public functions under the Court’s administrative supervision.

The Administrative Complaint and Allegations

Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), as well as Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and other guidelines. The allegations encompassed nonfeasance for failing to promptly act on pleadings, gross ignorance of the law, and improper conduct in issuing a report and recommendation. Complainant also charged that respondent maliciously altered pleadings to discredit her and failed to pursue disciplinary action against another attorney accused of forum shopping and malpractice.

Respondent’s Defense and Procedural History

Respondent denied all allegations, describing the complaint as harassment motivated by dissatisfaction with the adverse report and recommendation. He argued that the delay in resolution was due to complainant’s multiple unsanctioned motions and pleadings, which complicated and protracted the proceedings. Respondent’s report and recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors, a resolution against which complainant could have filed a motion for reconsideration but did not.

Jurisprudential and Statutory Background of IBP and Its Authority

The Court traced the IBP's establishment, noting its legislative and constitutional origin. The IBP was created through the collaborative efforts of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch to integrate the Philippine Bar, raise standards of the legal profession, and protect the public interest. It is not a government agency or public office in the traditional sense but a juridical person with public functions vested by the Court to regulate lawyers. IBP Commissioners are private practitioners performing delegated judicial functions but are not public officials for purposes of the applicable anti-corruption and public ethics laws.

Nature of IBP Officers as Private Practitioners Performing Public Functions

While IBP Commissioners perform quasi-judicial functions delegated by the Court, they are not “public officers” under R.A. No. 6713, the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Red Tape Act, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Their employment is private, though they are officers of the court and servants of the law. Accordingly, they are subject to administrative liability only in relation to their duties as IBP officers under the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, not under general governmental administrative laws.

Impropriety of Filing Administrative Complaints to Challenge Decisions of IBP Officers

The Court reiterated that filing administrative complaints against adjudicators such as IBP Commissioners to challenge the legal propriety of adverse decisions or resolutions is improper, especially when judicial or quasi-judicial remedies (e.g., motions for reconsideration) are available. Such complaints amount to collateral attacks or attempts to re-litigate issues and unduly clogs the disciplinary process.

On the Alleged Delay in Resolution of the Administrative Complaint

The respondent was accused of delay in acting on various motions filed by complainant. However, the Court clarified that the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD only recognize a limited category of pleadings: verified complaint, verified answer, verified position papers, and motion for reconsideration of resolutions. The majority of motions filed by complainant were unsanctioned and thus not required to be acted upon. Furthermore, complainant failed to produce evidence substantiating the alleged delays and dates of filing or denial of these motions. The Court held that respondent’s disregard of unsanctioned pleadings and issuance of a report and recommendation was proper and not indicative of nonfeasance.

On the Respondent’s Remarks Regarding Complainant’s Conduct

Respondent’s critical comments concerning complainant’s legal arguments and manner of pleadings were deemed fair

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12005)

Background and Context of the Case

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo (complainant) against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos (respondent), who was then a Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint accused respondent of various violations including breach of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The complainant also alleged nonfeasance for refusing to institute disciplinary actions despite repeated notices, gross ignorance of the law, and aggravations such as pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, substantial experience, and betrayal of trust as a Commissioner.
The underlying controversy originated from an administrative complaint lodged by Lucille G. Sillo against complainant, with respondent assigned as the investigator and reporter of that case.
On August 15, 2014, respondent issued his report recommending a reprimand against the complainant for improper communication with Sillo without counsel and use of improper language in pleadings.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report by resolution on January 31, 2015, precipitating the administrative complaint against respondent by complainant.

Specific Allegations Against Respondent

The complainant contended that:
- Respondent violated constitutional and procedural rules by failing to act expeditiously, issuing the report after 174 days from last pleading.
- Respondent displayed cruelty and malice by mutilating statements in her pleadings and creating a misleading impression against her.
- He engaged in nonfeasance by refusing to act on known violations of duties by another lawyer (Atty. Alan R. Bulawan) despite repeated notices.
- Gross ignorance of the law was exhibited concerning privileged communication, evidence rules, perjury, and forum shopping.
Respondent denied all allegations, claiming the delay was caused by complainant’s multiple pleadings and motions; he asserted proper procedure was followed and the report was lawfully adopted by the Board.
Complainant insisted that respondent's accountability was independent of the IBP-Board, criticizing alleged delayed reports and absence of stipulated facts.

The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline’s Report and IBP Board's Resolution

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
The Commission reasoned that the allegations were essentially an attack on respondent’s investigative findings, which had already been reviewed and approved by the IBP Board.
The Commission emphasized that administrative complaints are not the proper remedy for challenging adverse decisions of adjudicators, noting available remedies such as motions for reconsideration.
The IBP Board adopted the Commission’s recommendation and denied complainant’s motion for reconsideration.
The IBP transmitted the case records to the Supreme Court for final disposition.

Issues Presented for the Supreme Court’s Resolution

Whether respondent, as an IBP Commissioner, may be held administratively liable in the same manner as judges or other government officials.
Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for an allegedly adverse judgment rendered in his capacity as investigating commissioner of the IBP.

The Nature and Status of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

The IBP’s creation stems