Title
Zamora vs. Mahinay
Case
A.C. No. 12622
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2020
Atty. Mahinay faced disbarment for allegedly threatening a judge in a motion for reconsideration; SC dismissed the case, finding no abusive language or threats, upholding his right to defend clients ethically.
disbarment complaint
lack of substantial evidence
professional conduct

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12622)

Facts Leading to the Administrative Complaint

Zamora represented PJH Lending Corporation, which was the plaintiff in PJH Lending Corporation v. Jurisa Lariosa Tumog, et al. The case was filed before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 59. The MeTC rendered a decision in favor of PJH Lending Corporation, and the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212 affirmed. On appeal, the case was later remanded to the MeTC for proper disposition. After remand, PJH Lending Corporation filed a motion for execution, and the MeTC, then through Assisting Judge John Benedict Medina, granted the motion.

Atty. Mahinay, acting for his clients, filed a motion for reconsideration before Judge Medina. In that motion, he argued that the subject order would violate Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rules 3.01 and 3.02, and he enumerated points that included allegations that the trial court’s handling of the matter was legally defective. Zamora’s verified complaint characterized Atty. Mahinay’s pleading as containing a threat to file an administrative complaint against Judge Medina if the motion for reconsideration were not granted. Zamora thus accused him of violating Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Zamora further asserted that the episode was not the first instance of such conduct. She cited another pending matter before the RTC of Cebu, Branch 23, where Atty. Mahinay allegedly threatened Judge Generosa Labra with an administrative complaint if the motion for reconsideration was not resolved favorably. Zamora therefore concluded that Atty. Mahinay had the propensity to threaten judges with administrative complaints to obtain leverage, and she urged that he be disbarred.

Respondent’s Position Before the IBP

In his Answer, Atty. Mahinay denied any violation and argued that Zamora’s complaint lacked factual and legal basis. He maintained that his motion for reconsideration was not disrespectful. He also contended that he merely expressed his perception that Judge Medina had deviations from the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that it was his duty as an officer of the court to be forthright and candid regarding what he perceived as improper judicial action.

Atty. Mahinay also argued that furnishing a copy of his motion to the Court Administrator could not be considered a violation, since it was only preparatory to the filing of a formal administrative case that his client later indeed filed against Judge Medina. He thus insisted that his act was not a threat and was done in good faith without malice.

IBP Proceedings: Report and Recommendation to Dismiss

After the mandatory conference and submission of position papers, the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dismissing the complaint. The Investigating Commissioner observed that the alleged abusive remarks against Judge Medina were made through a pleading intended for and directed to the court. It was considered within Atty. Mahinay’s duty to be forthright and candid by expressing his perception of judicial deviation from the ethical rules.

The Investigating Commissioner also found that Zamora presented no proof, such as sworn testimony from vital witnesses or supporting documentary evidence, to establish that Atty. Mahinay actually intended to threaten Judge Medina. The Board of Governors of the IBP then adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and dismissed the complaint through Resolution No. XXII-2016-266 dated April 29, 2016.

Motion for Reconsideration and Partial Reversal by the IBP

Zamora filed a Motion for Reconsideration. She disagreed with the finding that there was no evidence of intent to threaten, emphasizing that the threat allegedly appeared on the face of the subject motion for reconsideration itself, which she attached to her complaint. She also cited other cases and attached pleadings to show what she claimed to be a pattern of disrespectful and threatening language used by Atty. Mahinay before courts.

In response, Atty. Mahinay argued that Zamora’s motion was pro-forma and insisted that the Board had already carefully considered the pleading and had found it non-violative of Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the CPR. Despite this, the Board granted Zamora’s motion for reconsideration through Resolution No. XXII-2017-814 dated January 27, 2017. The Board noted Atty. Mahinay’s previous infraction and concluded that he made brazen threats to the courts as leverage. The Board imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, for violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03.

In the Extended Resolution penned by IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Director Ramon S. Esguerra, the Board ruled that while Atty. Mahinay claimed to be defending his clients’ rights in the ejectment matter, he went out of bounds when he suggested that Judge Medina was partial to Zamora. It further held that his warning of an administrative case for alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, if his motion for reconsideration were denied, could not be countenanced. The Board treated these statements as promoting distrust in the administration of justice.

Reconsideration by the Board and Reinstatement of the Dismissal

Atty. Mahinay then filed a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. XXII-2017-814. He argued that Zamora’s motion should not have been entertained absent new evidence. He reiterated that the statements in his motion for reconsideration before Judge Medina were based on facts, law, and jurisprudence and were made without malice as part of his duty as counsel. He also objected to the Board’s reliance on his alleged prior infraction, contending that it was not within the issues agreed upon by the parties and that the prior infraction could not undermine the earlier finding that his pleading complied with ethical standards.

After further review, the Board issued Resolution dated August 29, 2018, granting Atty. Mahinay’s Motion for Reconsideration and reinstating the earlier Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation to dismiss, through the Board’s own resolution dated that date. The Board held that Zamora failed to present substantial evidence establishing a violation. It concluded that although Atty. Mahinay’s language was strong and passionate, nothing in it was insulting or disrespectful within the meaning of Canon 11, Rule 11.03.

Petition for Review and Core Issue

Aggrieved, Zamora filed the petition for review on certiorari, raising the essential question of whether the IBP had correctly dismissed the complaint against Atty. Mahinay.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and the IBP Board’s recommendation to reinstate the earlier resolution dismissing the complaint. The Court emphasized that the quantum of proof in administrative cases, including disbarment proceedings, is substantial evidence—the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate, even if other minds may entertain contrary views.

While recognizing that the pleading itself was the best evidence to determine whether Atty. Mahinay violated Canon 11, Rule 11.03, the Court held that Zamora’s evidence did not reach the threshold required. It found the language used in Atty. Mahinay’s motion for reconsideration not to be offensive, abusive, malicious, or intemperate. The Court considered the pleading as merely enumerating facts as perceived by Atty. Mahinay and his clients, which they believed the trial court was duty bound to consider.

The Court specifically addressed the inclusion of the word “partial” in the last clause of the enumeration, which stated that the court could not be partial to the party represented by Atty. Lim. The Court ruled that a sober reading of that statement did not amount to a conclusion that Judge Medina was being labelled as partial. It saw no insinuation to that effect, and it found it to be too much of a stretch to interpret the statement as a conclusion of partiality absent any bridge within the pleading linking such a conclusion to Judge Medina.

The Court further found no wrong in Atty. Mahinay’s statement that the defendants were furnishing a copy of the motion to the Court Administrator in order to upgrade what they perceived as a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct into a formal administrative complaint. It held that this statement could not be construed as a direct or veiled threat that an administrative case would be filed against Judge Medina if he did not rule in favor of Atty. Mahinay’s clients.

Comparison with Tolentino and Macapagal

In rejecting the characterization of threat, the Court distinguished Tolentino v. Judge Cabral and Macapagal, both of which involved conduct the Court had previously found to be threatening and improper. In Tolentino, the Court reprimanded a petitioner for threatening a respondent judge with an administrative charge if the petitioner’s motions were not granted. The Court in that case regarded the statement as a threat, even though it did not involve bodily harm. It had underscored that disrespectful, abusive, abrasive language and unfounded accusations, or intemperate words tending to obstruct, embarrass, or influence a court in administering justice, have no place in a pleading.

Similarly, in Macapagal, the Court reprimanded Atty. Walter T. Young for sending a letter to a judge in which he threatened administrative and criminal complaints if the judge persisted in implementing a writ. The Court in Macapagal treated the language as unquestionably demonstrating a threat to file administrative and criminal complaints if the writ was implemented.

The Court held that, unlike in those cases, the statement in Atty. Mahinay’s motion was plainly declaratory. It was not used as leverage, and it did not suggest an i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms