Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 119

A.C. No.

244 March 29, 1963 other evidence to prove their case not covered by this
stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF
TELESFORO A. DIAO, This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the
vs. "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner. his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano
University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April,
BENGZON, C.J.: 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd
semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been
in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and
the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath,
"That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with
satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.)
having falsely represented in his application for such Bar
as prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications.
(emphasis on "previous").
The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor General
who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he
submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take
from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he
in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter
completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained
education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact
specially, in the following particulars: that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing
such examinations is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
the regular manner is equally essential..

(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and


The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of
never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which
attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is
contradicts the credentials he had submitted in
required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So
support of his application for examination, and of his
ordered.
allegation therein of successful completion of the
"required pre-legal education".
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao,
practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although
he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service
of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given
therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school
diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational
authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd
and 4th year high school.

We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what


with respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that
effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However,
it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is
clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from
Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination
represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such
college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the
Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously
certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing
College, in his school records.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing


stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this
Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing
B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003 such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a
client in any court or administrative body.
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant,
vs. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
EDWIN L. RANA, Respondent. complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
mayoralty candidate George Bunan ("Bunan") without the latter
DECISION engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the
CARPIO, J.: proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.

The Case On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing


respondent to take the lawyer’s oath but disallowed him from
signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess
against him. In the same resolution, the Court required
the requisite moral integrity for membership in the legal
respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
profession. Possession of moral integrity is of greater
importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of
law is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his
candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he "specific assistance" to represent him before the MBEC.
passes the bar examinations. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice Bunan,
not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law."
Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that
The Facts
objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He
explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer
Respondent Edwin L. Rana ("respondent") was among those or represented himself as an "attorney" in the pleading.
who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan,
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath- respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on 11 May
taking of successful bar examinees as members of the 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He
Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable
("complainant") filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor
Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that the complaint
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of is politically motivated considering that complainant is the
law, and grave misrepresentation. daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of
Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the
the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at Roll of Attorneys.
the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the
Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondent’s
Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. Comment and refuted the claim of respondent that his
Thus, respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific
but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. assistance to Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001
Emily Estipona-Hao ("Estipona-Hao") filed a petition for
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent
law and grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When
respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC,
candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1)
Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of Mandaon, Masbate. respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was
Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the an employee of the government.
MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection
to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondent’s Comment)
for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent reiterating his claim that the instant administrative case is
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice "motivated mainly by political vendetta."
Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading
as counsel for George Bunan ("Bunan").
On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the
Bar Confidant ("OBC") for evaluation, report and
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that recommendation.
respondent is a municipal government employee, being a
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As
OBC’s Report and Recommendation In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,1 the Court
elucidated that:
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the
MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings
actively participated in the proceedings. The OBC likewise and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
found that respondent appeared in the MBEC proceedings the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
even before he took the lawyer’s oath on 22 May 2001. The clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing.
OBC believes that respondent’s misconduct casts a serious In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC matters connected with the law, incorporation services,
also believes that respondent’s unauthorized practice of law is assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law. The OBC appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a
therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and
to the Philippine Bar. insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have
On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and
cite a law which respondent allegedly violated when he drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the
appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a government determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of
employee. Respondent resigned as secretary and his facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied) x
resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was authorized xx
by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC.
In Cayetano v. Monsod,2 the Court held that "practice of law"
The Court’s Ruling means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and which are usually performed by members of the legal
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar. profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of
service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However,


the records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he
Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent took the appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
lawyer’s oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports
Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called
Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member
"counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that
pleading respondent stated that he was the "(U)ndersigned he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown
Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.3
GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May
2001 that he had "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right
to represent him" before the MBEC and similar bodies. but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral
character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession
"retained" respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even
May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. public trust4 since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by
counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party." passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege
Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
was entering his "appearance as counsel for Mayoralty examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced
Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC." law without a license.5
On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-
Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict.
proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,6 a candidate passed the bar
mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. examinations but had not taken his oath and signed the Roll of
Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyer’s even before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the
without being a member of the Philippine Bar. unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of
court.7
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and Footnotes
took the lawyer’s oath.1âwphi1 However, it is the signing in the
Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. 1 105 Phil. 173 (1959).
The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is 2 G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210.
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to 3 Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 211 Phil. 252 (1983).

become an attorney-at-law.8 Respondent should know that two 4 In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of

essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, etc., 30 July 1979, 92 SCRA 1.
performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this 5 Ui v. Bonifacio, Administrative Case No. 3319, 8 June 2000,

Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.9 333 SCRA 38.
6 Bar Matter No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 217.

On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that 7 People v. Santocildes, Jr., G.R. No. 109149, 21 December 1999,

the law does not allow respondent to act as counsel for a 321 SCRA 310.
private client in any court or administrative body since 8 Diao v. Martinez, Administrative Case No. 244, 29 March 1963,

respondent is the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan. 7 SCRA 475.


9 Beltran, Jr. v. Abad, B.M. No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA

Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the 217.


10 Respondent’s Comment, Annex "A".
Sangguniang Bayan prior to the acts complained of as
constituting unauthorized practice of law. In his letter dated 11
11
Ibid., Annex "B".
May 2001 addressed to Napoleon Relox, vice- mayor and
presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent stated
that he was resigning "effective upon your acceptance."10 Vice-
Mayor Relox accepted respondent’s resignation effective 11
May 2001.11 Thus, the evidence does not support the charge
that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving as
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,


evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to
represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar
bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent
nonetheless had no authority to practice law.

WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission


to the Philippine Bar.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban,


Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997 In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states
that:
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS
OATH a. He still believes that the infliction of severe physical injuries
which led to the death of his son was deliberate rather than
RESOLUTION accidental. The offense therefore was not only homicide but
murder since the accused took advantage of the neophyte's
PADILLA, J.: helplessness implying abuse of confidence, taking advantage of
superior strength and treachery.

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations


held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due b. He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser
to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide only out
Homicide. of pity for the mothers of the accused and a pregnant wife of
one of the accused who went to their house on Christmas day
1991 and Maundy Thursday 1992, literally on their knees,
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction,
crying and begging for forgiveness and compassion. They also
arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation
told him that the father of one of the accused had died of a
rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7)
heart attack upon learning of his son's involvement in the
other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide
incident.
charges. The eight (8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas
and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. c. As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-accused
for the death of his son. However, as a loving father who had
lost a son whom he had hoped would succeed him in his law
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment
practice, he still feels the pain of an untimely demise and the
dated 11 February 1993 imposing on each of the accused a
stigma of the gruesome manner of his death.
sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4)
months :and one (1) day to four (4) years.
d. He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now
morally fit for admission to the bar. He therefore submits the
On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's
matter to the sound discretion of the Court.
application for probation.

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who


On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a
possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required
report dated 6 April 1994 submitted by the Probation Officer
of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
recommending petitioner's discharge from probation.
administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not
only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the
On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to
be allowed to take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath, thereby further
discharge from probation. tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years
has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate
Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution requiring The resolution of the issue before us required weighing and
petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that reweighing of the reasons for allowing or disallowing
he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of petitioner's admission to the practice of law. The senseless
good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident
to the bar. absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar
since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted
no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters executed by In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we stated:
among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and
six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise
. . . participation in the prolonged and
submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been
mindless physical behavior, [which] makes
established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim,
impossible a finding that the participant
through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8)
[herein petitioner] was then possessed of
accused in the criminal case.
good moral character. 1

On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert


In the same resolution, however, we stated that the Court is
Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer to
prepared to consider de novo the question of whether
be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
petitioner has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo,
moral character referred to above. Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr.,
Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Before anything else, the Court understands and shares the
sentiment of Atty. Gilbert Camaligan. The death of one's child Footnotes
is, for a parent, a most traumatic experience. The suffering
becomes even more pronounced and profound in cases where 1 Resolution, p. 8.
the death is due to causes other than natural or accidental but
due to the reckless imprudence of third parties. The feeling
then becomes a struggle between grief and anger directed at
the cause of death.

Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court- manifesting his


having forgiven the accused is no less than praiseworthy and
commendable. It is exceptional for a parent, given the
circumstances in this case, to find room for forgiveness.

However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a


position to state if petitioner is now morally fit to be a lawyer.

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow


petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign
the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the
following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court


recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral
fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is
a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and
public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts
to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to
give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the
general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and
uncalculating.

We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere


ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at
ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises
he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers
conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration
of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for
everyone concerned.

The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with
the assistance he has been giving to his community. As a
lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is


hereby ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath on a date to be set
by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to
practice the legal profession.

SO ORDERED.
B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995 following excerpts which we quote with approval and which we
regard as having persuasive effect:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND
OATH-TAKING OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. In Re Farmer: 3
ARGOSINO, petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx
RESOLUTION
This "upright character" prescribed by the statute, as a
FELICIANO, J.: condition precedent to the applicant's right to receive a license
to practice law in North Carolina, and of which he must, in
A criminal information was filed on 4 February 1992 with the addition to other requisites, satisfy the court, includes all the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, charging Mr. elements necessary to make up such a character. It is
A.C. Argosino along with thirteen (13) other individuals, with something more than an absence of bad character. It is the
the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul good name which the applicant has acquired, or should have
Camaligan on 8 September 1991. The death of Raul Camaligan acquired, through association with his fellows. It means that he
stemmed from the infliction of severe physical injuries upon must have conducted himself as a man of upright character
him in the course of "hazing" conducted as part of university ordinarily would, or should, or does. Such character expresses
fraternity initiation rites. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused then itself, not in negatives nor in following the line of least
entered into plea bargaining with the prosecution and as a resistance, but quite often, in the will to do the unpleasant thing
result of such bargaining, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense if it is right, and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is
of homicide through reckless imprudence. This plea was wrong. . . .
accepted by the trial court. In a judgment dated 11 February
1993, each of the fourteen (14) accused individuals was xxx xxx xxx
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years. And we may pause to say that this requirement of the statute is
eminently proper. Consider for a moment the duties of a lawyer.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an He is sought as counsellor, and his advice comes home, in its
application for probation with the lower court. The application ultimate effect, to every man's fireside. Vast interests are
for probation was granted in an Order dated 18 June 1993 committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust
issued by Regional Trial Court Judge Pedro T. Santiago. The and confidence; he deals with is client's property, reputation, his
period of probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the life, his all. An attorney at law is a sworn officer of the Court,
probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to whose chief concern, as such, is to aid the administration of
supervise him. justice. . . .

Less than a month later, on 13 July 1993, Mr. Argosino filed a xxx xxx xxx4
Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations. In
this Petition, he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and In Re Application of Kaufman,5 citing Re Law Examination of
his then probation status. He was allowed to take the 1993 Bar 1926 (1926) 191 Wis 359, 210 NW 710:
Examinations in this Court's En Banc Resolution dated 14
August 1993.1 He passed the Bar Examination. He was not, It can also be truthfully said that there exists nowhere greater
however, allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office. temptations to deviate from the straight and narrow path than
in the multiplicity of circumstances that arise in the practice of
On 15 April 1994, Mr. Argosino filed a Petition with this Court profession. For these reasons the wisdom of requiring an
to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and to admit applicant for admission to the bar to possess a high moral
him to the practice of law, averring that Judge Pedro T. standard therefore becomes clearly apparent, and the board of
Santiago had terminated his probation period by virtue of an bar examiners as an arm of the court, is required to cause a
Order dated 11 April 1994. We note that his probation period minute examination to be made of the moral standard of each
did not last for more than ten (10) months from the time of the candidate for admission to practice. . . . It needs no further
Order of Judge Santiago granting him probation dated 18 June argument, therefore, to arrive at the conclusion that the highest
1993. Since then, Mr. Argosino has filed three (3) Motions for degree of scrutiny must be exercised as to the moral character of
Early Resolution of his Petition for Admission to the Bar. a candidate who presents himself for admission to the bar. The
evil must, if possible, be successfully met at its very source, and
The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional prevented, for, after a lawyer has once been admitted, and has
right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a pursued his profession, and has established himself therein, a
high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral far more difficult situation is presented to the court when
character, with special educational qualifications, duly proceedings are instituted for disbarment and for the recalling
ascertained and certified.2 The essentiality of good moral and annulment of his license.
character in those who would be lawyers is stressed in the
In Re Keenan:6 scope of such inquiry is, indeed, said to be properly broader
than inquiry into the moral proceedings for disbarment:
The right to practice law is not one of the inherent rights of every
citizen, as in the right to carry on an ordinary trade or business. Re Stepsay: 10
It is a peculiar privilege granted and continued only to those who
demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in The inquiry as to the moral character of an attorney in a
moral character. All may aspire to it on an absolutely equal proceeding for his admission to practice is broader in
basis, but not all will attain it. Elaborate machinery has been set scope than in a disbarment proceeding.
up to test applicants by standards fair to all and to separate the
fit from the unfit. Only those who pass the test are allowed to Re Wells: 11
enter the profession, and only those who maintain the
standards are allowed to remain in it.
. . . that an applicant's contention that upon application for
admission to the California Bar the court cannot reject him for
Re Rouss:7 want of good moral character unless it appears that he has
been guilty of acts which would be cause for his disbarment or
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, suspension, could not be sustained; that the inquiry is broader
and a fair private and professional character is one of them; to in its scope than that in a disbarment proceeding, and the court
refuse admission to an unworthy applicant is not to punish him may receive any evidence which tends to show the applicant's
for past offense: an examination into character, like the character as respects honesty, integrity, and general
examination into learning, is merely a test of fitness. morality, and may no doubt refuse admission upon proofs that
might not establish his guilt of any of the acts declared to be
Cobb vs. Judge of Superior Court:8 causes for disbarment.

Attorney's are licensed because of their learning and ability, so The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by
that they may not only protect the rights and interests of their those who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity
clients, but be able to assist court in the trial of the cause. Yet be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from
what protection to clients or assistance to courts could such members of the general public. There is a very real need to
agents give? They are required to be of good moral character, so prevent a general perception that entry into the legal
that the agents and officers of the court, which they are, may not profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral
bring discredit upon the due administration of the law, and it is qualifications. The growth of such a perception would signal
of the highest possible consequence that both those who have the progressive destruction of our people's confidence in their
not such qualifications in the first instance, or who, having had courts of law and in our legal system as we know it.12
them, have fallen therefrom, shall not be permitted to appear in
courts to aid in the administration of justice. Mr. Argosino's participation in the deplorable "hazing"
activities certainly fell far short of the required standard of
It has also been stressed that the requirement of good moral good moral character. The deliberate (rather than merely
character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general accidental or inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries
public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, which proximately led to the death of the unfortunate Raul
than the possession of legal learning: Camaligan, certainly indicated serious character flaws on the
part of those who inflicted such injuries. Mr. Argosino and his
. . . (In re Applicants for License, 55 S.E. 635, 143 N.C. 1, 10 co-accused had failed to discharge their moral duty to protect
L.R.A. [N.S.] 288, 10 Ann./Cas. 187): the life and well-being of a "neophyte" who had, by seeking
admission to the fraternity involved, reposed trust and
The public policy of our state has always been to admit no confidence in all of them that, at the very least, he would not
person to the practice of the law unless he covered an upright be beaten and kicked to death like a useless stray dog. Thus,
moral character. The possession of this by the attorney is more participation in the prolonged and mindless physical beatings
important, if anything, to the public and to the proper inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of
administration of justice than legal learning. Legal learning may that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which
be acquired in after years, but if the applicant passes the makes impossible a finding that the participant was then
threshold of the bar with a bad moral character the chances are possessed of good moral character.
that his character will remain bad, and that he will become a
disgrace instead of an ornament to his great calling — a curse Now that the original period of probation granted by the trial
instead of a benefit to his community — a Quirk, a Gammon or court has expired, the Court is prepared to consider de
a Snap, instead of a Davis, a Smith or a Ruffin.9 novo the question of whether applicant A.C. Argosino has
purged himself of the obvious deficiency in moral character
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired referred to above. We stress that good moral character is a
into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. The requirement possession of which must be demonstrated not
only at the time of application for permission to take the bar
examinations but also, and more importantly, at the time of 2 G.A. Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics (1949), at p. 13; In Re
application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's Parazo, 82 Phil. 230, 242 (1948), reiterated in Tan v. Sabandal,
oath of office. 206 SCRA 473, 481 (1992).

Mr. Argosino must, therefore, submit to this Court, for its 3 131 S.E. 661 (1926).
examination and consideration, evidence that he may be now
regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral 4 131 S.E. at 663.
character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.
His evidence may consist, inter alia, of sworn certifications from 5 69 Idaho 297, 206 P2d 528 (1949).
responsible members of the community who have a good
reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino
6 314 Mass 544, 50 NE 2d 785 (1943).
for a significant period of time, particularly since the judgment
of conviction was rendered by Judge Santiago. He should show
to the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless 7 221 NY 81, 116 NE 782 (1917).
killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased
student and to the community at large. Mr. Argosino must, in 8 43 Mich 289, 5 NW 309 (1880).
other words, submit relevant evidence to show that he is a
different person now, that he has become morally fit for 9 In Re Farmer, supra at 663.
admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law.
10 15 Cal 2d 71, 98 P2d 489 (1940).
Finally, Mr. Argosino is hereby DIRECTED to inform this Court,
by appropriate written manifestation, of the names and 11 174 Cal 467, 163 P 657 (1917).
addresses of the father and mother (in default thereof, brothers
and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan), within ten (10) day from 12 See generally, Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc. (En Banc), 223 SCRA
notice hereof. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the 378, 409 (1993).
parents or brothers and sisters, if any, of Raul Camaligan.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo,


JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J. is on leave.

Footnotes

1 There is some indication that clerical error attended the grant


of permission to take the 1993 Bar Examinations. The En
Banc Resolution of this Court dated 24 August 1993 entitled
"Re: Applications to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations," stated on
page 2 thereof:

"The Court further Resolved to ALLOW the following


candidates with dismissed charges or complaints, to take the
1993 Bar Examinations:

xxx xxx xxx

3349. Al C. Argosino

xxx xxx xxx

(Emphasis supplied)

In fact, applicant Argosino had been convicted and sentenced


and then paroled.
December 3, 1948 Jose de la Cruz as Commissioner with the assistance of Mr. E.
Soriano, Clerk of Court to cite Mr. Parazo for questioning and
In re Investigation of ANGEL J. PARAZO for alleged leakage investigation. In this connection, and for purposes of showing
of questions in some subjects in the 1948 Bar the interest of the Supreme Court in the news item and its
Examinations. implications, it may here be stated that this Court is and for
many years has been, in charge of the Bar Examinations held
Felixberto M. Serrano for respondent. every year, including that of this year, held in August, 1948.
Enrique M. Fernando and Francisco A. Rodrigo, Abelardo Subido, Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines
and Arturo A. Alafriz (for the Philippine Lawyers' Association) as authorizes this Court to promulgate rules concerning admission
amici curiae. to the practice of law, and pursuant to that authority, Rule 127
of the Rules of Court was promulgated, under which rule, this
Court conducts the Bar Examinations yearly, appoints a
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Committee of Bar Examiners to be presided by one of the
Justices, to serve for one year, acts on the report of the
The present case had its origin in a story or news item prepared committee and finally, admits to the Bar and to the practice of
and written by the defendant, Angel J. Parazo, a duly accredited law, the candidates and examinees who have passed the
reporter of the Star Reporter, a local daily of general circulation, examinations.
that appeared on the front page of the issue of September 14,
1948. The story was preceded by the headline in large letters —
The investigation of Mr. Parazo was conducted on September
"CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS," followed by another in
18, 1948, on which occasion he testified under oath and,
slightly smaller letters — "Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly
answering questions directed to him by Messrs. Cruz and
Probed; One School Favored," under the name — "By Angel J.
Soriano admitted that he was the author of the news item; that
Parazo of the Star Reporter Staff." For purposes of reference we
he wrote up the story and had it published, in good faith and in
quote the news item in full:
a spirit of public service; and that he knew the persons who
gave him the information which formed the basis of his
Leakage in some subjects in the recent bar examinations were publication but that he declined to reveal their names because
denounced by some of the law graduates who took part in the the information was given to him in confidence and his
tests, to the Star Reporter this morning. informants did not wish to have their identities revealed. The
investigators informed Parazo that this was a serious matter
These examinees claim to have seen mimeograph copies of the involving the confidence of the public in the regularity and
questions in one subject, days before the tests were given, in the cleanliness of the Bar Examinations and also in the Supreme
Philippine Normal School. Court which conducted said examinations, and repeatedly
appealed to his civic spirit and sense of public service, pleading
Only students of one private university in Sampaloc had those with and urging him to reveal the names of his informants so
mimeographed questions on said subject fully one week before that the Supreme Court may be in a position to start and
the tests. conduct the necessary investigation in order to verify their
charge and complaint and take action against the party or
The students who made the denunciation to the Star parties responsible for the alleged irregularity and anomaly, if
Reporter claim that the tests actually given were similar in every found true, but Parazo consistently refused to make the
respect to those they had seen students of this private university revelation.
holding proudly around the city.
In the meantime, the writer of this opinion who was appointed
The students who claim to have seen the tests which leaked are to the Supreme Court as associate Justice in the latter part of
demanding that the Supreme Court institute an immediate August, 1948, was designated to succeed Mr. Justice Padilla as
probe into the matter, to find out the source of the leakage, and Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners when the said
annul the test papers of the students of the particular university Justice was appointed Secretary of Justice. The writer of this
possessed of those tests before the examinations. opinion was furnished a copy of the transcript of the
investigation conducted on September 18, 1948, and he made
The discovery of the alleged leakage in the tests of the bar a report thereof to the Court in banc, resulting in the issuance
examinations came close on the heels of the revelations in of the resolution of this Court dated October 7, 1948, which
the Philippine Collegian, official organ of the student body of the reads as follows:
University of the Philippines, on recent government tests wherein
the questions had come into the possession of nearly all the In relation with the news item that appeared in the front page of
graduates of some private technical schools. the Star Reporter, issue of September 14, 1948, regarding alleged
leakage in some bar examination questions, which examinations
To the publication, evidently, the attention of the Supreme were held in August 1948, Mr. Jose de la Cruz, as Commissioner,
Court must have been called, and Mr. Justice Padilla, who had and Mr. E. Soriano, as Clerk of Court, were authorized by Mr.
previously been designated Chairman of the Committee of Bar Justice Sabino Padilla then chairman of the committee of bar
Examiners for this year, by authority of the Court, instructed Mr. examiners to conduct an investigation thereof, particularly to
receive the testimony of Mr. Angel J. Parazo, the reporter counsel, several newspapermen, Clerk of Court Soriano, Deputy
responsible for and author of said news item. An investigation Clerk of Court Cruz, and Mr. Chanliongco made a formal
was conducted on September 18, 1948; stenographic notes were demand on Mr. Parazo to reveal the identities of his
taken of the testimony of Mr. Parazo, and Mr. Justice Marcelino informants, under oath, but he declined and refused to make
R. Montemayor, the new chairman of the committee of bar the revelation. At the request of his counsel, that before this
examiners, has submitted the transcript of said notes for the Court take action upon his refusal to reveal, he be accorded a
consideration of this Court. hearing, with the consent of the Court first obtained, a public
hearing was held on the same day, October 15, 1948 in the
From the record of said investigation, it is clear that Mr. Parazo course of which, Attorney Serrano extensively and ably argued
has deliberately and consistently declined and refused to reveal the case of his client, invoking the benefits of Republic Act No.
the identity of the persons supposed to have given him the data 53, the first section of which reads as follows:
and information on which his news item was based, despite the
repeated appeals made to his civic spirit, and for his SECTION 1. The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of
cooperations, in order to enable this Court to conduct a thorough any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
investigation of the alleged bar examination anomaly, Resolved, cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report
to authorize Mr. Justice Montemayor to cite Mr. Parazo before or information appearing in said publication which was related
him, explain to him that the interests of the State demand and so in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the
this Court requires that he reveal the source or sources of his court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such
information and of his news item, and to warn him that his revelation is demanded by the interest of the state.
refusal to make the revelation demanded will be regarded as
contempt of court and penalized accordingly. Mr. Justice This Court has given this case prolonged, careful and mature
Montemayor will advise the Court of the result. consideration, involving as it does interesting and important
points of law as well as questions of national importance.
Acting upon this resolution, the writer of this opinion cited Mr. Counsel contends that the phrase "interest of the state" found
Parazo to appear before him on October 13, 1948. He at the end of section 1 of Republic Act No. 53 means and refers
appeared on the date set and it was clearly explained to him only to the security of the state, that is to say — that only
that the interest of the State demands and this court requires when National Security or public safety is involved, may this
that he reveal the source of sources of his information and of Court compel the defendant to reveal the source or sources of
his news item; that this was a very serious matter involving the his news report or information. We confess that it was not easy
confidence of the people in general and the law practitioners to decide this legal question on which the conviction or
and bar examinees in particular, in the regularity and acquittal of Parazo hinges. As a matter of facts, the vote of the
cleanliness of the bar examinations; that it also involves the Justice is not unanimous.
good name and reputation of the bar examiners who are
appointed by this Court to prepare the bar examinations In an effort to determine the intent of the Legislature that
questions and later pass upon and correct the examinations passed Republic Act No. 53, particularly the Senate were it
questions and last but not least, it also involves and is bound to originated, we examined the record of the proceedings in said
affect the confidence of the whole country in the very Supreme legislative body when this Act, then Senate Bill No. 6 was being
Court which is conducting the bar examinations. It was further discussed. We gathered from the said record that the original
explained to him that the Supreme Court is keenly interested in bill prepared by Senator Sotto provided that the immunity to
investigating the alleged anomaly and leakage of the be accorded a publisher, editor, or reporter of any newspaper
examination questions and is determined to punish the party was absolute and that under no circumstance could he be
or parties responsible therefor but that without his help, compelled to reveal the source of his information or news
specially the identities of the persons who furnished him the report. The committee, however, under the chairmanship of
information and who could give the court the necessary data Senator Cuenco inserted an amendment or change, by adding
and evidence, the Court could not even begin the investigation to the end of section 1 of the clause "unless the court finds that
because there would be no basis from which to start, not even such revelation is demanded by the public interest."
a clue from which to formulate a theory. Lastly, Parazo was told
that under the law he could be punished if he refused to make When the bill as amended was recommended for approval on
the revelation, punishment which may even involve second reading, Senator Sotto, the author of the original bill
imprisonment. proposed an amendment by eliminating the clause added by
the committee — "unless the court finds that such revelation is
Because of the seriousness of the matter, Parazo was advised demanded by the public interest," claiming that said clause
to think it over and consider the consequences, and if he need would kill the purposed of the bill. This amendment of Senator
time within which to do this and so that he might even consult Sotto was discussed. Various Senators objected to the
the editor and publisher of his paper, the Star Reporter, he elimination of the clause already referred to on the ground that
could be given an extension of time, and at his request, the without such exception and by giving complete immunity to
investigation was postponed to October 15, 1948. On that date editors, reporters, etc., many abuses may be committed.
he appeared, accompanied by his counsel, Atty. Felixberto M. Senator Cuenco, Committee chairman, in advocating the
Serrano. The writer of this opinion in the presence of his disapproval of the Sotto amendment, and in defending the
exception embodied in the amendment introduced by the where it says that "the privacy of communications and
Committee, consisting in the clause: "unless the court finds that correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
such revelation is demanded by the public interest," said that the court or when public safety and order require otherwise;"
the Committee could not accept the Sotto amendment and Article VII, section 10(2) of the same Constitution provided
because there may be cases, perhaps few, in which the interest that the President may suspend the privileges of the writ of
of the public or the interest of the state required that the names habeas corpus, in case of invasion, insurrection, etc., when
of the informants be published or known. He gave as one the public safety requires it.
example a case of a newspaperman publishing information
referring to a theft of the plans of forts or fortifications. He The phrase "National Security" is used at the beginning of Book
argued that if the immunity accorded a newspaperman should II of the Revised Penal Code, thus: Title I, — Crimes
be absolute, as sought by the Sotto amendment, the author of against National Security and the law of Nations, Chapter I, —
the theft might go scott-free. When the Sotto amendment was Crimes against National Security. Then, more recently, the
put to a vote, it was disapproved. Finally, Senator Sotto phrase "National Security" was used in section 2, and the
proposed another amendment by changing the phrase "public phrase "public security" was equally used in section 19, of
interest" at the end of section 1 as amended by the Committee Commonwealth Act No. 682 creating the People's Court,
be changed to and substituted by the phrase "interest of the promulgated on September 25, 1945. If, as contended, the
state," claiming that the phrase public interest was too elastic. Philippine Congress, particularly the Philippine Senate, had
Without much discussion this last amendment was approved, meant to limit the exception to the immunity of newspapermen
and this phrase is now found in the Act as finally approved. only to cases where the "security of the state," i.e., "National
Security" is involved, it could easily and readily have used such
In view of the contention now advanced, that the phrase phrase or any one of similar phrases like "public
"interest of the state" is confined to cases involving the safety," "National Security," or "public security" of which it must
"security of the state" or "public safety," one might wonder or have been familiar. Since it did not do so, there is valid reason
speculate on why the last amendment proposed by Senator to believe that that was not in the mind and intent of the
Sotto, changing the phrase "public interest" to "interest of the legislators, and that, in using the phrase "interest of the state,"
state," was approved without much discussion. But we notice it extended the scope and the limits of the exception when a
from the records of the deliberations on and discussion of the newspaperman or reporter may be compelled to reveal the
bill in the Senate that the phrase "public interest" was used sources of his information.
interchangeably by some Senators with the phrase "interest of
the state." For instance, although the bill, as amended by the The phrase "interest of the state" is quite broad and extensive.
Committee presided by Senator Cuenco, used the words It is of course more general and broader than "security of the
"public interest, "when Senator Cuenco sponsored the bill state." Although not as broad and comprehensive as "public
before the Senate he used in his speech or remarks the phrase interest" which may include most anything though of minor
"interest of the State" (interes del Estado). Again, although the importance, but affecting the public, such as for instance, the
bill, as sponsored by the Cuenco Committee and discussed by establishment and maintenance of barrio roads, electric light
the Senate, used the words "public interest, "Senator Sebastian and ice plants, parks, markets, etc., the phrase "interest of the
referred to the exception by using the phrase "interest of the estate" even under a conservative interpretation, may and does
state." This understanding of at least two of the Senators, who include cases and matters of national importance in which the
took part in the discussion, about the similarity or whole state and nations, not only a branch or instrumentality
interchangeability of the two phrases "public interest" and thereof such as a province, city or town, or a part of the public,
"interest of the estate," may account for the readiness or lack of is interested or would be affected, such as the principal
objection on the part of the Senate, after it had rejected the functions of Government like administration of justice, public
first Sotto amendment, to accept the second Sotto school system, and such matters like social justice, scientific
amendment, changing the phrase "public interest" to "interest research, practice of law or of medicine, impeachment of high
of the state." Government officials, treaties with other nations, integrity of
the three coordinate branches of the Government, their
In referring to a case wherein the security of the state or public relations to each other, and the discharge of their functions,
safety was involved, such as the theft of the plans of etc.
fortifications, Senator Cuenco was obviously giving it only as an
example of what he meant by "interest of the state;" it was not We are satisfied that the present case easily comes under the
meant to be the only case or example. We do not propose to phrase "interest of the state." Under constitutional provision,
define or fix the limits or scope of the phrase "interest of the article VIII, section 13, Constitution of the Philippines, the
state;" but we can say that the phrase "interest of the state" can Supreme Court takes charge of the admission of members to
not be confined and limited to the "security of the state" or the Philippine Bar. By its Rules of Court, it has prescribed the
to "public safety" alone. These synonymous phrases, — qualifications of the candidates to the Bar Examinations, and it
"security of the state" and "public safety," — are not has equally prescribed the subject of the said Bar Examinations.
uncommon terms and we can well presume that the legislators Every year, the Supreme Court appoints the Bar examiners who
were familiar with them. The phrase "public safety," is used in prepare the questions, then correct the examination papers
Article III, section 1(5) of the Constitution of the Philippines, submitted by the examinees, and later make their report to the
Supreme Court. Only those Bar Examination candidates who the morale of the hundreds of students and graduates of the
are found to have obtained to passing grade are admitted to different law schools, studying law and later preparing for the
the Bar and licensed to practice law. There are now thousands Bar Examinations, would be affected, even disastrously, for in
of members of the Philippine Bar, scattered all over the them may be born the idea that there is no need of much law
Philippines, practicing law or occupying important Government study and preparation inasmuch as it is possible and not
posts requiring membership in the Bar as a prerequisite, and difficult to obtain copies of questions before the examinations
every year, quite a number, sometimes several hundreds, are and pass them and be admitted to the Bar.
added to the legal fold. The Supreme Court and the Philippine
Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal The cloud of suspicion would, equally, hang over the Bar
profession, both in academic preparation and legal training, as examiners themselves, eight eminent lawyers who in a spirit of
well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed public service and civic spirit, have consented to serve on the
lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high Committee of Examiners at the request and designation of this
standard; and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit Court. They would be suspected, — one or two or more of
to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who them — that through negligence, or connivance, or downright
are known to be honest, possess good moral character, and corruption, they have made possible the release if they have
show proficiency in and knowledge of the law by the standard not themselves actually released, before examination day, the
set by this Court by passing the Bar Examinations honestly and questions they had prepared. The employees of the Supreme
in the regular and usual manner. It is of public knowledge that Court in charge of the Bar Examinations, specially those who
perhaps by general inclination or the conditions obtaining in copy or mimeograph the original copies furnished by the Bar
this country, or the great demand for the services of licensed examiners, would all be under suspicion. And, lastly, and more
lawyers, law as compared to other professions, is the most important still, the Supreme Court itself which has to overall
popular in these islands. The predominantly greater number of supervision and control over the examinations, would share the
members of the Bar, schools and colleges of law as compared suspicion, as a result of which the confidence of the people in
to those of other learned professions, attest to this fact. And this High Tribunal, which public confidence, the members of
one important thing to bear in mind is that the Judiciary, from this Court like to think and believe, it still enjoys, might be
the Supreme Court down to the Justice of the Peace Courts, affected and shaken. All these considerations of vital
provincial fiscalships and other prosecuting attorneys, and the importance, in our opinion, can and will sufficiently cause the
legal departments of the Government, draw exclusively from present case to fall and be included within the meaning of the
the Bar to fill their positions. Consequently, any charge or phrase "interest of the state," involving as it does, not only the
insinuation of anomaly in the conduct of Bar Examinations, of interests of students and graduates of the law schools and
necessity is imbued with wide and general interest and national colleges, and of the entire legal profession of this country as
importance. well as the good name and reputation of the members of the
Committee of Bar Examiners, including the employees of the
If it is true that Bar Examination questions, for some reason or Supreme Court having charge of and connections with said
another, find their way out and get into the hands of Bar examinations, but also the highest Tribunal of the land itself
examinees before the examinations are actually given, and as a which represents one of the three coordinate and independent
result thereof some examinees succeed in illegally and branches or departments of the Philippine Government.
improperly obtaining passing grades and are later admitted to
the Bar and to the practice of law, when otherwise they should In support of if not in addition to the power granted by section
not be, then the present members of the legal profession 1 of Republic Act. No. 53 to this Court, we have the inherent
would have reason to resent and be alarmed; and if this is power of courts in general, specially of the Supreme Court as
continued it would not be long before the legal profession will representative of the Judicial Department, to adopt proper and
have fallen into disrepute. The public would naturally lose adequate measures to preserve their integrity, and render
confidence in the lawyers, specially in the new ones, because a possible and facilitate the exercise of their functions, including,
person contemplating to go to court to seek redress or to as in the present case, the investigation of charges of error,
defend himself before it would not know whether a particular abuse or misconduct of their officials and subordinates,
lawyer to whom he is entrusting his case has legally passed the including lawyers, who are officers of the Court. (Province of
Bar Examinations because of sufficient and adequate Tarlac vs. Gale, 26 Phil., 350; 21 C.J.S. 41, 138.) As we have
preparation and training, and that he is honest, or whether he previously stated, the revelation demanded of the respondent,
was one of those who had succeeded in getting hold of Bar of the identity of his informants, is essential and necessary to
Examination questions in advance, passed the Bar Examinations the investigation of the charge contained in the publication
illegally, and then started his legal career with this act of already mentioned.
dishonesty. Particularly, the Bar examinees who, by intense
study and conscientious preparations, have honestly passed It will be noticed from Parazo's news item as quoted in the first
the Bar Examinations and are admitted to practice law, would part of this decision, that, informants, law graduates and bar
be affected by this anomaly, because they would ever be under examinees, were denouncing the supposed anomaly —
a cloud of suspicion, since from the point of view of the public, consisting of the alleged leakage of the Bar Examination
they might be among those who had made use of Bar questions — to the Supreme Court for due investigation. If
Examination questions obtained before hand. And, incidentally, those persons really meant and intended to make a bona
fide and effective denunciation, with expectation of results, the reveals the identities of his informants, and those informants
right place to air their grievance was the Supreme Court itself, and or others with facts and reliable evidence, aid and
not a newspaper; and if they truly wanted an investigation, they cooperate with the Court in its endeavor to further examine
should have come forward and furnished or stood ready to and probe into the charges contained in the news items, said
furnish the facts on which to base and from which to start an charges are considered and held to be without basis, proof or
investigation, instead of concealing themselves behind the foundation.
curtain of press immunity.
When the Supreme Court decided to demand of the
Examining the news item in question, it is therein claimed and respondent herein that he reveal the names of his informants, it
assured that Bar Examination questions in at least one subject was not impelled or motivated by mere idle curiosity. It truly
had been obtained and used by bar examinees coming from a wanted information on which to start an investigation because
certain university, one week before the examinations were it is vitally interested in keeping the Bar Examinations clean and
actually held. Parazo in his statements and answers during the above board and specially, not only to protect the members of
investigation said that examination questions in several the Bar and those aspiring for membership therein and the
subjects were involved in the anomaly. But no copy or copies of public dealing with the members thereof and the Bar Examiners
said examination questions were furnished us. No one is willing who cooperate with and act as agents of this Court in
to testify that he actually saw said alleged copies of preparing the examination questions and correcting the
examination questions; that they were actually and carefully examination papers, but also, as already stated, to keep the
compared with the legitimate examination questions given out confidence of the people in this High Tribunal as regards the
on the day of the examination and found to be identical; no discharge of its function relative to the admission to the
one is ready and willing to reveal the identity of the persons or practice of law. These, it can only do by investigating any Bar
bar examinees said to have been seen with the said Bar Examination anomaly, fixing responsibility and punishing those
Examination questions, although they as well as the university found guilty, even annulling examinations already held, or else
where they came from, was known; and even the law subjects declaring the charges as not proven, if, as a result of the
to which the questions pertained are not disclosed; and, lastly, investigation, it is found that there is insufficiency or lack of
we are not allowed to know even the identity of respondent evidence. In demanding from the respondent that he reveal the
Parazo's informants who claim to have seen all these things. sources of his information, this Court did not intend to punish
those informants or hold them liable. It merely wanted their
In this connection it may be stated that in the las Bar help and cooperation. In this Court's endeavor to probe
Examinations held in August, 1948, approximately nine thoroughly the anomaly, or irregularity allegedly committed, it
hundred candidates took them, each candidate writing his was its intention not only to adopt the necessary measures to
answers in a book for each subject. There were eight subjects, punish the guilty parties, if the charges are found to be true,
each belonging to and corresponding to each one of the eight but also even to annul the examinations themselves, in justice
bar examiners. There were therefore eight sets of bar to the innocent parties who had taken but did not pass the
examination questions, and multiplying these eight sets of examinations. We say this because in every examination,
questions by nine hundred candidates, gives a total of seven whether conducted by the Government or by a private
thousand two hundred (7,200) examination papers involved, in institution, certain standards are unconsciously adopted on
the hand of eight different examiners. The examination books which to base the passing grade. For instance, if, as a result of
or papers bear no names or identifications of their writers or the correction of many or all of the examination papers, it is
owners and said ownership and identification will not be found that only very few have passed it, the examiner might
known until the books or papers are all corrected and graded. reasonably think that the questions he gave were unduly
Without definite assurance based on reliable witnesses under difficult or hard to understand, or too long, as a result of which
oath that the alleged anomaly had actually been committed, — he may be more liberal and be more lenient and make
evidence on the identity of the persons in possession of the allowances. On the hand, if too many obtain passing grade, the
alleged copies of questions prematurely released or illegally examiner may think that the examination questions were too
obtained and made use of, the law subjects or subjects easy and constitute an inadequate measure of the legal
involved, the university from which said persons come, this knowledge and training required to be a lawyer, and so he may
Court does not feel capable of or warranted in taking any step, raise his standard and become more strict in his correction of
such as blindly and desperately revising each and every one of the papers and his appreciation of the answers. So, in a case
the 7,200 examination books with the fond but forlorn hope of where examinees, especially if many, succeed in getting hold of
finding any similarity or identity in the answers of any group of questions long before examinations day, and study and
examinees and basing thereon any definite finding or prepare the answers to those questions, it may result that when
conclusion. Apart from the enormity of the task and its the examiner finds that many of the examinees have easily and
hopelessness, this Court may not and cannot base its findings correctly answered the questions, he may think that said
and conclusions, especially in any serious and delicate matter questions were too easy, raise the standard by being strict in
as is the present, on that kind of evidence. Under these his correction of the papers, thereby giving a grade below
circumstances, this Court, for lack of basis, data and passing to a number of examinees who otherwise would have
information, is unable to conduct, nay, even start, an validly passed the examinations.
investigation; and, unless and until the respondent herein
In conclusion, we find that the interest of the state in the In the tug of war between the theory of absolute privilege of
present case demands that the respondent Angel J. Parazo the author of the original bill and the Senate committee that
reveal the source or sources of his information which formed would limit the privilege up to the point where it runs in
the basis of his news items or story in the September 14, 1948 conflict with the wide area of public interest, the opposing
issue of the Star Reporter, quoted at the beginning of his sides arrived at a meeting ground in which the line of limitation
decision, and that, in refusing to make the revelation which this was pushed up to the place where the privilege may be in
Court required of him, he committed contempt of Court. The conflict with the interest of the state. No one is authorized to
respondent repeatedly stated during the investigation that he push that line of limitation still farther to the fence surrounding
knew the names and identities of the persons who furnished the safety of the state. We have to stop at the line of limitation
him the information. In other words, he omitted and still set by Congress. To hurdle it is to transgress the law.
refuses to do an act commanded by this Court which is yet in
his power to perform. (Rule 64, section 7, Rules of No matter how much we may agree with the side maintaining
Court.)Ordinarily, in such cases, he can and should be the absolute privilege or reducing any limitation to an
imprisoned indefinitely until he complied with the demand. imaginable minimum, or how much we may sympathize with its
However, considering that case like the present are not failure in the Senate or in Congress, we are powerless to
common or frequent, in this jurisdiction, and that there is no retrieve that side from its plight. We are not authorized to
reason and immediate necessity for imposing a heavy penalty, inject in the statute a law of our own creation, or make of a
as may be done in other cases where it is advisable or legislative failure a success, and thus defeat the legislative
necessary to mete out severe penalties to meet a situation of intent. There is no alternative for the losing legislative side
an alarming number of cases of a certain offense or a crime except to bide for time and wait for a more respective mood of
wave, and, considering further the youthful age of the Congress.
respondent, the majority of the members of this Court have
decided to order, as it hereby orders, his immediate arrest and Contempt of court is an offense that should not be left
confinement in jail for a period of one (1) month, unless, before unpunished, especially if it consists in the disobedience of a
the expiration of that period he makes to this Court the judicial order. The orders of a court demand obedience for
revelation demanded of him. So ordered. their effectiveness. Administration of justice is impossible with
unenforceable judicial orders. The effectiveness of judicial
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ., orders is the elan vital of the administration of justice. To
concur. disobey an order of court is a terrible thing because it means
sowing the seeds of anarchy and chaos. The Supreme Court, if
Separate Opinions it can help it, will never allow such a thing to obtain.

Perfecto, J., concurring and dissenting: Anyone may imagine a state or a human society smoothly
functioning without an executive department or without a
The facts in this case, as narrated in the decision penned by Mr. legislative department. As a matter of fact, in this Republic,
Justice Montemayor, justify conclusively the finding of the Congress functions only one third of the year. During the
majority that respondent is guilty of contempt for his stubborn remaining two thirds of the year the life of the nation does not
refusal to obey an order of this Court. suffer any impairment. It can even be said that during those
two thirds of the year there is more normalcy than during the
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 53, invoked by respondent in his Congressional session when legislative reforms and the
defense, does not protect him. It would protect him only if we enactment of new laws cannot but produce some public
could agree with his theory that the words "interest of the uneasiness, sometimes, amounting to a real crisis in the way of
state" used in the law should be read to mean security of the life of the people. No one can imagine the possibility of an
state or public safety. But there is nothing in the whole text of orderly human society without some effective system of
Republic Act No. 53 and/or in the intention of those who administration of justice, functioning without long
drafted and enacted it, as can be gleaned in the Senate journal, interruptions.
or in the grammatical, rhetorical, or philosophical meaning of
the words in question, that can justify the limiting or narrowing While we cannot overemphasize the importance of upholding
of the scope of the ideas that they embrace within the small judicial authority to its full measure and this Supreme Court will
circle of public security or safety of the state. never take lightly any disobedience to or defiance of its orders,
and it should mete out to all affected parties the tremendous
The word "interest" in the phrase "interest of the state" weight of its power and will punish, without fear or favor, the
represents a world of ideas and concepts within the ideas of guilty parties, regardless of who they may be, in the present
security or safety occupy a place, however privileged, case we are constrained to disagree with the penalty imposed
insignificant in magnitude. There is no legal basis for us to upon respondent.
reduce the purpose of the law, as conveyed by its very words,
to a minimum that, if given effect, would virtually amend the Respondent is punished under section 7 of Rule 64, the same
law without the benefit of congressional enactment. Such section we have already declared invalid in our opinion in the
would be violative of the Constitution. Harden case, 81 Phil., 741. The provision of law applicable to
respondent is contained in section 6 of Rule 64, under which a In this connection, it is necessary to remember that the original
person guilty of contempt may be fined in a sum not exceeding bill sponsored by Senator Sotto provided for absolute
P1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. immunity. The committee on revision of laws, however, inserted
Considering that there are mitigating circumstances that an amendment by adding the clause "unless the court finds
attenuate respondent's responsibility, — youthfulness, honest that such revelation is demanded by the public interest."
but wrong belief in the existence of a privilege, absence of Senator Sotto's attempt to suppress this clause failed, after
substantial harm, — we should not impose upon respondent a which, in view of the remarks of the Chairman of the committee
stiffer penalty than that which we imposed in the case of Benito presently to be mentioned, Senator Sotto proposed to change
M. Sakdalan, L-2781, the very one which, as can be gleaned the words "public interest" into "interest of the state," a
from the Senate journal, prompted the enactment of Republic proposal that was readily accepted. Hence, the use of the latter
Act No. 53. phrase in Republic Act No. 53.

We cannot agree with the proviso in the majority opinion Our task now is to discover the meaning and scope of the
leaving to respondent the discretion to reduce the phrase "interest of the state," as intended by the lawmakers. In
imprisonment imposed by the simple process of making the this task, it is important to recall that the original intention of
revelation exacted from him. The penalty should be measured the author of the bill was to provide for absolute immunity, and
by the responsibility, and that measure cannot be left at the this purpose should not of course be unduly defeated by any
discretion of the guilty one. His future revelation will not subsequent exception, especially when the limited sphere of
diminish or in any way affect his responsibility for the offense the change is apparent from the deliberations of the
he has already perpetrated. His past disobedience cannot be lawmakers. For instance, in explaining the reason of the
attenuated by a future action. The past cannot be remade. committee for opposing Senator Sotto's advocacy of absolute
What has been done cannot be undone. These are verities no immunity and of the suppression of the clause "unless the
one can eloign. court finds that such revelation is demanded by the public
interest," added to the original bill, Senator Cuenco gave the
We vote to impose upon respondent two days of example of a newspaperman who publishes an information
imprisonment. regarding theft of plans of forts and fortifications, in which case
Senator Cuenco believed that "el interes publico y el interes
PARAS, J., dissenting: mismo del Estado requieran que se publique el nombre del
informante." Again, after proposing the change of "public
interest" to "interest of the state," Senator Sotto, when asked
If, as insisted by the respondent, he wrote up and published in
by Senator Garcia as to the essential difference between the
the newspaper Star Reporter the story (Claim "Leak" in Last Bar
two phrases, explained that "La diferencia esta en que puede
Tests) quoted in full in the decision of the majority, in good
haber un caso de espionaje, como el citado por el Senador
faith and in a spirit of public service, he voluntarily should have
Cuenco, delito en que esta interesado el Estado y no se puede
revealed the identities of his informants, thereby enabling this
discutir al autor, y la frase `public interest' es muy elastica. En
Court, conformably to the alleged demands of denouncing bar
cambio, se se pone `interest of the state,' claramente se
examinees, to "institute an immediate probe into the matter, to
entenderia que mediando el interes del Estado, el periodista
find out the source of the leakage, and annual the test papers
estara obligado a revelar la fuente de su informacion." Last but
of the students of the particular university possessed of those
not least, it should be noted that the Act in question was
tests before the examinations." If he was in fact motivated by a
prompted by the desire of its sponsor to prevent the repetition
spirit of public service, he should at least have tried to secure
of the case of Benito Sakdalan, a reporter who was imprisoned
their consent to the revelation. The point I want to underscore
for refusing to reveal the source of the information contained
is that newspaper reporters should be fearless as well in
in a news item admittedly not affecting, like the story published
publishing stories as in substantiating their truth. And if I am
by the respondent, the security or safety of the State. It
constrained to dissent from the ruling of the majority, it is only
logically follows that the phrase "interest of the state" was
because the respondent, in my opinion, cannot legally be
intended to be limited to cases portrayed by the examples
compelled to make the revelation, in view of Republic Act No.
(theft of plans of forts and fortifications and espionage), given
53 — which this Court is bound to enforce — providing that
during the deliberations which solely affect the security or
"the publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
safety of the state.
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report
or information appearing in said publication which was related It is immaterial whether the law did not employ phrases like
in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the "public safety," "national Security," or "public security," or
court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such whether "public interest" and "interest of the state" were
revelation is demanded by the interest of the state." I have no interchangeably used in the discussions, as long as in using the
hesitancy in believing that the phrase "interest of the state," as phrase "interest of the state" in Act No. 53, the lawmakers
used in the Act, refers exclusively to matters affecting the definitely knew and accordingly recorded, by specific examples,
security or safety of the state. what they intended to convey. Conjectures cannot prevail over
the clear legislative intent.
The exception provided in the Act in question should be strictly puede ser compelido a revelar el origen de cualquier
construed so as not to frustrate the main purpose of the law. noticia o informacion que le haya sido transmitida en
This would further make the law more consonant with the spirit confianza y que haya aparecido en dicho periodico,
of the constitutional provisions that "the privacy of revista o publicacion, a menos que el tribunal o una
communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except camara del Congreso o un comite del mismo halley y
upon lawful order of the Court or when public safety and order determine que el interes del Estado requiere que se
require otherwise"(Article III, section 1, paragraph 5), and that haga tal revelacion.
no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press
(Article III, section 1, paragraph 8). Podemos tomar conocimiento judicial de las motivaciones de
esta ley como tema de historia contemporanea. Hace dos años
It may not be amiss to add that the refusal of the respondent un juez del Tribunal del Pueblo (People's Court) lanzo
to disclose the source of his information does not absolutely publicamente algunos ataques contra esta Corte. Un periodista,
prevent this Court from verifying, by any reasonable and Benito Sakdalan, se hizo eco de dichos ataques publicando
feasible means, the truth of the alleged anomaly; and it is bajo su firma y responsabilidad un articulo informativo acerca
certainly not required, by the mere publication of the story in del particular. A instancia de parte, un Magistrado de esta
question, to admit the accuracy of said story if its investigation Corte mando emplazar a Sakdalan para una investigacion del
should fail because of lack of evidence or of the refusal of incidente. Sakdalan comparecio, pero cuando se le pregunto
those who know to come out and testify. de quien habia recibido su informacion, negose en absoluto a
hacer la revelacion exigid. El Magistrado de referencia ordeno
In my opinion, the respondent has not committed any entonces que se le detuviera a Sakdalan en la escribania de
contempt of this Court. esta Corte por dos dias, en castigo por lo que se creyo un
desacato.
Briones, M., dissenting:
El caso Sakdalan causo un revuelo tremendo en la prensa,
Deploro no podeer estar conforme con la decision de la despertando entre sus camaradas una general simpatia
mayoria sobre este incidente. Me preocupa como al que mas el perfectamente explicable. Sakdalan se convirtio en heroe del
buen nobmre, el prestigio, la respetabilidad de esta Corte dia, por lo menos en las columnas de los periodicos. El tono
Suprema — baluarte inexpugnable de las libertades y fueros predominante de los comentarios periodisticos era que
civiles — pero hay algo que me preocupa mas y esla substancia Sakdalan estaba justificado en su negativa,que el sagrado de la
misma de esas libertades y fueros. En realidad, en tanto la conciencia del periodista debia ser respetado, y que la orden
Corte Suprema crece y se agiganta en el concepto publico en de detencion constituia una violacionde la libertad de la
cuanto ella se mantiene enhiesta en la cima de la cumbre prensa. El revuelo repercutio en los circulos legislativos,
donde la coloca su categoria y constituye la ultima esperanza culminando en las aprobacion de la Ley de la Republica No. 53
del ciudadano cuando en su derredor todo parece crujir y que nos ocupa.
requebrajarse.
Resulta importante y util destacar este fondo historico, pues
El recurrido, Angel Parazo, es reportero del periodico diario por ello se explican ciertas caracteristicas del proyecto de ley
"The Star Reporter" que se edita en Manila. A raiz de los ultimos original presentado en el Senado. Una de las mas salientes, por
examenes de abogacia, publico un articulo informativo en el ejemplo, era lo absoluto del privilegio: no se proveia ninguna
que se decia que algunos examinandos habian visto copias de excepcion, ninguna salvedad, no pudiendose obligar al
algunos cuestionarios antes de la celebracion de los examenes periodista a revelar el origen de su informacion bajo ninguna
y que dichas copias fueron utilizadas por los examinandos circunstancia.
procedentes de cierta universidad privada. El Magistrado
encargado de los examenes emplazo al recurrido para que La medida tiene antecedentes bien conocidos en nuestra
explicase la noticia y diese los nombres de sus informantes a misma legislacion. Primeramente en el antiguo Codigo de
fin de poder investigarles minuciosamente y ver la manera de Procedimiento Civil, y ahora en el Reglamento de los
adoptar las medidas que fueran procedentes. El recurrido Tribunales, figuran ciertas disposiciones que restringen la
comparecio, pero se nego en absoluto a revelar el origen de su libertad para testificar o el derecho de examinar a ciertos
informacion. De ahi el presente expediente por desacato. testigos sobre determinadas materias. Verbigracia, en nuestra
ley sobre pruebas y evidencias, regla 123, seccion 26, se provee
La controversia gira en torno a la interpretacion del articulo 1 lo siguiente:
de la Ley de la Republica No. 53, aprobada por el Congreso en
su ultimo periodo de sesiones. Dicho articulo se lee como xxx xxx xxx
sigue:
(e) El abogado no puede, sin el consentimiento de su
El publicista, editor o reportero debidamente cliente, ser examinado respecto a una conversacion
acreditado de cualquier periodico, revista o que tuvo con este, o acerca de algun consejo que le
publicacion periodica de circulacion general, no diera como tal, ni tampoco el secretario,taquigrafo o
empleado de un abogado, sin el consentimiento del
cliente y del abogado, pueden ser examinados veridica, imparcial y constructiva — cometido essencial de una
respecto a un hecho cuyo conocimiento hayan buena prensa, digna del apelativo de cuarto poder del Estado
adquirido en el desempeño de sus deberes. — tal es el objeto fundamental de la medida, en franse
definidora del Senador Cuenco, ponente de la misma
(f) A ninguna persona debidemante autorizada para y chairman del comite de revision de leyes del Senado. Es
ejercer la medicina, la cirugia o la obstetricia, se importante destacar esta motivacion legislativa, pues ello nos
obligara en alguna causa civil, a revelar, sin el ayuda, al interpretar la ley, a determinar si el privilegio debe ser
consentimento del paciente, cualquier informe que entendido rigidamente en contra o liberalmente en pro del
dicha persona haya adquirido al sistir al paciente con periodista. Estimo que la indicada exposicion de motivos
caracter profesional, que necesariamente hubo de justifica, mas aun, requiere una interpretacion liberal.
adquirir para poder obrar con tal caracter, y que
tienda a denigrar la dignidad del paciente. Como queda dicho, en el proyecto de ley original presentado
por el Senador Sotto el privilegio se establecia de una manera
(g) El clerigo o sacerdote no puede ser examinado sin absoluta, incondicional. Sin embargo, el comite de revision de
el consentimiento de su penitente, respecto a la leyes del Senado al cual se habia endosado el bill, lo informo
confesion que le haya hehco este, en su caracter con una enmienda, añadiendo al final del articulo 1 transcrito
sacerdotal, y en cumplimiento de los deberes que le arriba las siguientes palabras: "unless the court finds that such
impone la religion a que pertenece. revelation is demanded by the public interest."* Al discutirse, sin
embargo, el proyecto en pleno Senado, Sotto formulo una
(h) El funcionario publico no puede ser examinado enmienda mediante la supresion de la salvedad insertada por
mientras este en el ejercicio de su cargo, o despues, el comite, tratando asi de restaurar la fraseologia original del
respecto a lo que se le hubiese comunicado en proyecto. Cuenco, en su caracter de ponente y chairman del
confidencia oficial, cuando el tribunal determine que comite de revision de leyes, se opuso a la enmienda Sotto por
el interes poublico se perjudicara con la revelacion. supresion y siguio un debate bastante extenso. Sotto dijo
enfaticamente que "esas palabras deben suprimirse porque
matan el objeto del proyecto de ley. Si, como ha dicho el
Es indudable que la medida coloca al periodista en la categoria
sesudo presidente del comite de revision de leyes, el pretende
de estas exenciones especialisimas, situandole al nivel del
colocar al periodista en el mismo nivel del sacerdote, tengamos
sacerdote, del abogado y del medico. El Senador Cuenco,
en cuenta que en el caso de este no hay esa excepcion."
ponente del proyecto de ley al ponerse a discusion, dijo en
parte lo que sigue a modo de explicacion de sus elevados fines:
Cuenco, cerrando el debate, hizo las siguientas manifestaciones
en contra de la enmienda Sotto:
El proyecto de ley que esta ahora bajo la
consideracion de esta Camara tiene por objeto eximir
al director, redactor o reporter de un periodico, de la El Sen. CUENCO. Señor Presidente, como ya he
obligacion de revelar el nombre de la persona de manifestado el Comite siente no poder aceptar la
quien haya obtenido una informacion, a menos que el enmienda, porque puede haber casos, quiza muy
interes del Estado asi lo requiera. La legislacion que se contados, en que el interes publico y el interesmismo
trata de dictar ne es del todo nueva. Nuestra ley del Estado requieran que se publique el nombre del
procesal considera como privilegiada y digna de ser informante. Supongamos que un periodista publicara
mantenida en secreto toda communicacion recibida una informacion referente al hurto o sustraccion de
por el sacerdote, el abogado y el medico en el unos planos de fortalezas o de un sitio importante de
ejercicio de su ministerio o profesion. El proyecto no defensa. Si la inmunidad que se otorga al periodista
solo dignifica y eleva la profesion periodistica, sino que fuese absoluta, como la que se propone en la
da facilidades a los periodicos para obtener noticias. (El enmienda, el autor de la sustraccion pordria quedar
subrayado es nuestro.) impune.

El periodismo, mas que un medio para obtener bienes Señor Presidente: he sido periodista por espacio de
materiales, es un apostolado, un sacerdocio. El veinticinco años y me honro en serlo, antes que
periodista no es un mercachifle, sino una persona abogado, antes que legislador, pero, por lo mismo
llamada a cumplir una mision elevada, sublime, que tengo un concepto elevado de la profesion no
augusta. La hoja periodica es catedra. De ella irradia la quisiera que se diese el caso de que una traicion al
luz que difunde la cultura, la instruccion, los principios estado quedase impune: que nosotros llevasemos a
eticos y morales, las reglas de una ciudadania honrada extremos exagerados la proteccion que se da al
y patriotica. (Diario de sesiiones del Senado, Julio 9, periodista.
1946.)
Puesta a votacion la enmienda, fue rechazada, votanda a favor
Elevar y ennoblecer la profesion del periodista y dar facilidades 3 y en contra 7.
a los periodicos para obtener una informacion honrada,
Sotto, sin embargo, no se dio por enteramente derrotado. que habla el Senador ponente. No cabe aplicar, extender la
Esforzandose por sacar avante su proyecto de ley con la menor frase a casos de otra especie, de otro genero, porque ese
cortapisa posible para la lilbertad de la prensa, propuso otra equivaldria a establecer un "standard," una norma de
enmienda en el sentido de sustituir las palabras "public interpretacion arbitraria, hasta caprichosa, como mas adelante
interest" con "interest of the State," de tal suerte que la voy a demostrar, apreciando que el interes del Estado esta
salvedad se leyera como sigue: "unless the court finds that such entrañado en algunos asuntos y matices de caracter publico y
revelation is demanded by the interest of the State." * Ya no hubo excluyendolo, sin embargo, de otros, yen esto sin mas guia y
debate sobre esta enmienda: el mismo comite la acepto, por norma que la opinion harto debatible del juez o tribunal
boca de su chairman el Senador Cuenco. Puesto a votacion, la sentenciador sobre lo que es digno de ser catalogado bajo la
misma se aprobo por unanimidad. Sin embargo, antes de la frase "interes del Estado" y sobre lo que no lo es.
votacion, el Senador Garcia pregunto que diferencia esencial
habia entre las frases "public interest" e "interest of the State". Resulta evidente, de lo dicho, que no es exacto y carece de
Sotto contesto que "la diferencia esta en que puede haber fundamento lo que en la decision de la mayoria se afirma, a
uncaso de espionaje como el citado por el Senador Cuenco, saber: que las frases "public interest" o "interest of the State" se
delito en que esta interesado el Estado y no se puede descubrir entendieron y usaron indistintamente por los Senadores. Por el
al autor," mientras que, por otro lado, la frase "public interest" contrario, el Diario de Sesiones del Senado demuestra de un
es muy elastica." "En cambio — continuo Sotto — si se pone modo inequivoco que los Senadores sabian muy bien lo que
"interest of the State", claramente se entenderia que mediando hacian al cambiar una frasse por otra y se daban perfecta
el interes del Estado, el periodista estara obligado a revelar la cuenta de que el cambio no era simplemente gramatical o
fuente de su informacion." (Diario de Sesiones del lexicografico, sino qu entrañaba una considerable diferencia en
Senado, supra.) cuanto al significado y alcance de la salvedad o excepcion.
Sabian muy bien quela frase "public interest" es muy elastica, al
De lo expuesto resulta evidente que la sustitucion de la frase decir del Senador Sotto, y que desde luego tiene un marco
"public interest" por la de "interest of the State"no fue mucho mas amplio que la frase "interest of the State." La
simplemente casual e inimportante, sino que fue harto presuncion es que los legisladores toman muy en serio la tarea
deliberada, hecha con el proposito de restringir el alcance de la de legislar y que cuando cambian una frase por otra lo hacen
salvedad. Se dijo que la frase "public interest"es muy elastico y no por simple capricho, sino con verdadera deliberacion. La
el Senado, en pleno, acepto este pronunciamiento. Asi que se tarea legislativa no es un juego de niños. Pero ¿que mejor
puso "interest of the State" para denotar que solo se podria prueba de la diferencia entre ambos conceptos que la misma
obligar al periodista a descurbirir, como testigo, la fuente de su admision de la mayoria en su decisional decir que "interest of
informacion cuando el Estado estuviese vitalmente interesado the State" is not as broad and comprehensive as "public
en la materia; es decir, cuando estuviese envuelta la seguridad interest" which may include most anything though of minor
del Estado, de la Nacion, conceptos que en este caso se importance but affecting the public"1 ...?lawphil.net
confundirian. En ejemplo del espionaje citado por el Senador
Cuenco, abona esta interpretacion. "Interes del Estado" tiene La endoblez de la teoria de la mayoria salta a la vista si se
aqui un significado particularisimo, repelente de otros casos examinan sus implicaciones y consecuencias. ¿Por que decide
extraños a la seguridad nacional: ese significado no puedeser la mayoria que en el presente caso se halla envuelto el interes
mas que el interes del Estado en su propia viad, en su propia del Estado y que, por tanto, el recurrido esta obligado a revealr
seguridad. No cabe extender el alcance de la frase a otros casos la fuente de su informacion y si no lo hace incurre en desacato,
en que el Estado pudiera estar mas o menos interesado, punible con prision? Por varias razones que se exponen en la
porque si la intencion del Congreso fuera esa, la frase "public decision, entre las cuales se destacan las siguientes: (a) los
interest" seria mas que suficiente, pues la misma cubre y examenes de abogados estan colocados bajo la alta
comprende todos los matices publicos desde la seguridad del supervision de esta Corte Suprema, cuyo prestigio, buen
Estado y de la Nacion hasta el ultimo asunto en que el publico nombre y respectabilidad es de supremo interes del Estado el
tuviera interes hasta cierto punto. Esta forma de interpretar es conservar y mantener; (b) miles de abogados se hallan
tanto mas logica, obligada, cuanto que los legisladores esparcidos por el pais ejerciendo su noble profesion, y
aceptaron y aprobaron unanimemente el pronunciamiento de centenares si no miles se anaden cada año a esa vasta legion;
que la frase "public interest" era muy elastica, cubria asi que la Corte Suprema y esta enorme masa de letrados
demasiado. Por tanto, hay que concluir que cuando adoptaron estanvitalmente interesados en elevar el "standard" profesional,
la frase sustitutiva "interest of the State," la adoptaron para procurando que entren solo los idoneos, moral e
limitar, para restringir la salved, reduciendola solamente a intelectualmente, y este interes cae tambien bajo la catagoria
algunos casos, muy contados, segun expresion del Senador de "interes del Estado"; (c) acaso por natural inclinacion, la
Cuenco. "¿Que casos son estos" Entiendo que deben abogacia es la profesion mas popular en Filipinas; de ahi la
ser congeneres, es decir, del mismo tipo que el caso de abundancia de colegios y escuelas de derecho en donde
espionaje citado; es decir, casos que afecten vitalmente a la estudian miles de jovenes de ambos sexos aspirando a ponerse
seguridad del Estado, de la Nacion. Verbigracia: una la toa de Marco Tulio; de ahi naturalmente tambien el interes
conspiracion para derrocar violentamente nuestra forma de del Estado en que esa profesion tan popularno caiga en
gobierno y establecer en su lugar una dictadura comunista descredito, cosa que ocurriria facilmente si los examenes de
totalitaria al estilo sovietico, seria uno de esos muy contados de abogados no se efectuasen propia y honradamente como una
prueba rigida de la capacidad y caracter de los examinandos, publico, esta interesado o podrina quedar afectado." Asique, a
circulando previamente cuestionarios de "contrabando" tal juicio de la mayoria, el ejercicio de la medicina es al parecer de
como se ha denunciado en el articulo informativo que nos indole tan nacional y tan importante como "interes del Estado";
ocupa; (d) entre los abogados se escoge el personal para la al paso que las otras profesiones y vocaciones quedan
judicatura y la administracion de justicia — magistrados, jueces definitivamente excluidas del coto privilegiado.
de primera instancia, fiscales, jueces de paz y letrados en las
diferentes oficinas y agencias del gobierno; de ahi que sea Los farmeceuticos, sin embargo, podrian naturalmente
naturalmente tambien interes del Estado el conservar la formular las siguientes preguntas: ¿Por que se va a postergar
integridad y buen nombre de una profesion que proporciona al nuestra honrada y benemerita profesion? ¿no nos cuesta tanto
gobierno y a la nacion tan valiosos servidores y elementos; (e) tiempo y tantos esfuerzos, si no mas, hacer la carrera que el
en la pureza de los examenes de abogados esta envuelto no abogado, verbigracia? ¿no prestamos acaso a la sociedad, a la
solo el buen nombre de la Corte Suprema como queda dicho, humanidad, un servicio tan util, tan indispensable y tan
sino tambien el buen nombre de la junta examinadora y de los importante como el de cualquier otro profesional? ¿no somos
empleados de la Corte que intervienen y vigilan dichos quienes preparamaos con infinito ciudado las drogas y
examenes; asi que todo cargo de venalidad y corrupcion tiene medicamentos que prescribe y receta el medico? ¿no esta en
que afectar a dicho buen nombre y proyectar una sombra de nuestras manos la salud, la vida, e incluso la muerte de los
sospecha sobre el mismo; de ahi que sea interes del Estado el ciudadanos, de los hombres? ¿por que, pues, se va a sentenciar
que se investiguen implacablemente los cargos para depurar que el interes del Estado no esta vinculado en nuestra
los hechos y hallar la verdad castigando a los culpables si los profesion?
hay, y purificando de tal manera los examenes, pero si, por otro
lado, los cargos resultaren falsos, reivindicando el buen nombre Por su parte, los ingeniereos de todas clases — civiles,
de los afectados; (f) en resumen, de lo dicho se sigue que los industriales, quimicos, mecanicos, navales, mineros, etc. —
examenes de abogados tienen importancia nacional y, por podrian hacer estas embarazosas preguntas: "¿Por que todos
tanto, cualesquier cargos de venalidad, corrupcion e los mimos y caricias van a ser para los abogados? ¿nada mas
irregularidad tienen tambien importancia nacional y es interes que porque la mayor parte del tiempo nos ponemos la humilde
del Estado el que se investiguen hasta el limite maximo de las blusa del obrero y estamos casi siempre sucios -- la suciedad
posibilidades legales. inherente al sudor y mugre del trabajo? ¿no construimos acaso
los caminos, los puentes, los sistemas de aquas, los sistemas de
En ultimo analisis, se puede decir que la mayoria estima regadio, los hermosos y enormes edificios particulares y
envuelto en el presente caso el "interes del Estado, "primero, publicos, las ingentes fabricas, en una palabra, todo eso que
porque se trata de la profesion de abogado — profesion de constituye la maravillade los presentes tiempos, traduciendo en
noble y vasta significacion social, juridica y politica — realidad tangible lo que no parecia ser mas que loca fantasia
y, segundo, porque tratandose de acusaciones referentes a los de la imaginacion de los poetas? ¿no hemos acaso conquistado
examenes de abogados cuya supervision corresponde a esta el secreto divino de los atomos, desencadenando, es verdad,
Corte Suprema, el buen nombre, el prestigio y la respetabilidad las fuerzas ciegas de la destruccion sobre el mundo, pero
de este alto tribunal estan necesariamente afectados. Veamos tambien abriendo para el genero humano vastos panoramas y
ahora si la tesis puede resistir a un examen rigido, objetivo. perspectivas de progreso y bienestar casi ilimitado? Se dice
que la abogacia es la carrera mas popular y mas codiciada en
No sere yo quien discuta o ponga en tela de juicio la Filipinas, pero ¿no existe el peligro de que esta popularidad se
prestancia, el elevado rango de la profesion de abogado a la este fomentando insensatamente a expensas de la vitalidad de
cual me honro en pertenecer. Pero ¿que hay de las otras la nacion? ¿nose cree acaso llegado el momento de que los
profesiones? ¿Son ellas menos dignas de merecer el supremo caudillos y directores del pensamiento en este pais emprendan
interes del Estado? Durante las deliberaciones sobre el una seria cruzada para orientar las aficiones y energias de
presente asunto tuve ocasion de formular estas preguntas y nuestra juventud hacia carreras mas practicas y mas
otras semejantes. Recuerdo que inclusive cite casos especificos constructivas no solo para ellos particularmente, sino sobre
preguntando, por ejemplo, si en los examenes de medicos, todo para la nacion? ¿por que se va a consagrar precisamente
farmaceuticos, ingenieros, dentistas y nurses, no podira con una sentencia judicial — nada menos que del mas alto
tambien considerarse envuelto el interes del Estado si al igual tribunal — la supremacia de la profesion de abogado en este
que en este asunto se formulasen graves cargos de pais, en desdoro de las otras profesiones, por que?"
irregularidad, corrupcion y venalidad. Respecto al caso de los
medicos no obtuve una contestacion categorica, definitiva; Y asi, por el estilo, las otras profesiones podrian reclamar y
pero con relacion a las otras profesiones, la respuesta fue pretender con jusiticia que tienen tanta categoria como los
decididamente negativa; respecto a ellas, no cabria invovar el abogados para que se considere aplicable a ellas el concepto
interes del Estado — su rango, su significacion social no juridico "interes del Estado" de que habla la ley de la Republica
justificarian tal invocacion. Ahora veo que en la decision de la No. 53 que nos ocupa. Y si esto fuese asi, esto es, se estimase
mayoria el ejercicio de la medicina se incluyo entre los "casos y envuelto el "interes del Estado" en casi todas las materias,
materias de importancia nacional, en los cuales el Estado o la verbigracia, hasta en los examenes de nurses, al punto de que
nacion entera, y no solo un ramo o instrumento del mismo interes del Estado equivaldria practicamente a interes publico
como una provincia, una ciudad o una pueblo, o una parte del ¿que quedaria entonces del privilegio concedido por dicha ley
a la prensa? ¿no seria mas bien una letra muerta, como predijo Analizare ahora el argumento aquiles de la mayoria. Se dice
el Senador Sotto al pedir la supresion de la salvedad o que el interes del Estado se halla envuelto en el presente caso
excepcion? porque de por medio anda el prestigio, el buen nombre de
esta Corte Suprema en virtud de las facultades de alta
Se dice, con cierto enfasis, que la profesion de abogado tiene supervision que ejerce sobre los examenes de abogados. El que
una calidad excepcional, un rango privilegiado, porque de ella escribe estas lineas no cede a nadie en su celo por mantener
se escogen y nombran los magistrados, los jueces de primera incolume el prestigio de esta Corte; pero, al propio tiempo, no
instancia, los jueces de paz y los fiscales, en una palabra, el puede cerrar los ojos a la realidad, a saber: que no somos mas
personal basico de la administracion de justicia. Se ha que uno de los tres poderes del Estado; que estos poderes son
insinuado inclusive que de esa profesion surgen regularmente iquales y ninguno de ellos tiene mas prestigio que el otro. Los
los lideres politicos y sociales de las naciones y pueblos. examenes de abogados no tienen mas importancia y
Comencemos por esto ultimo. ¿Tienen los abogados la envergadura nacional porque los supervisamos que, por
exclusiva del liderato publicos y social del mundo? Esto lo diria ejemplo, los examenes de ingenieros y farmeceuticos, cuyas
un panegirista de la profesion en un discurso de fin de curso juntas examinandoras son nombradas por el poder ejecutivo y
de un colegio de leyes, pero la historia nos dice que el liderato son responsables ante el mismo. El poder ejecutivotiene tanto
no ha sido nunca cuestion profesional, sino que el lider ha derecho como esta Corte para velar por su prestigio y buen
surgido como un precipitado individual o social nombre. Si, como al parecer admite la mayoria, el interes del
independientemente de las profesiones y oficios. Ha habido y Estado no se extiende a los examenes de ingenieros y
hay en el mundo muchos caudillos no abogados y, por cierto, farmaceuticos por no ser materia de suficiente monta nacional,
los mejores no siemprehan sido siempre los de esta clase. Es luego tampoco debe extenderse a los examenes de abogados
verad que hubo un Lincoln — abogado — uno de los caudillos tan solo porque la Corte Suprema tiene intima relacion con
mas sobresalientes que la democraica produjera en el mundo; estos en virtud de sus facultades de supervision, pues, como
pero tembien hubo un Washington — agrimensor — padre de queda dicho, ningun poder es mas prestigioso que el otro —
la nacion que produjo a Lincoln. Y el caso de Filipinas es desde luego esta Corte no puede pretender se mas que los
todavia mas tipico como demostracion de las tesis de que el otros poderes del Estado.
cuadillaje no es cuestion profesional. Como todo el mundo
sabe, nuestros dos mas grandes caudillos en el pasado no eran Puede aducirse, por analogia, otro buen argumento en favor de
abogados; Rizal era medico; y Bonifacio, el llamado padre de la la tesis de esta disidencia. Una de las garantias constitucionales
democracia filipina, no solo no era profesional, sino que apenas es la inviolabilidad del secreto del la comunicacion y
era nada, academicamente hablando — era un simple correspondencia, excepto cuando la seguridad publica y el
bodeguero, un verdadero plebeyo. Sin embargo, esto no le orden requieran otra cosa y mediante una orden legal del
impidio, mientras fraguaba el acero candente del Katipunan, tribunal. (Constitucion de Filipinas, Articulo III, seccion 5, bill de
empaparse en las gestas de la revolucion francesa leyendo a derechos.) Es verdad que la constitucion habla de seguridad
Thiers en español. (¿Cuantos de nuestros abogados — dicho publica, mientras que la ley de la Republica No. 53 habla de
sea entre parentesis — sobre todo de la epoca de Bonifacio, interes del Estado, pero la letra aqui no es lo importante, sino la
habran leido, o siquiera visto el forro, de la Revolucion identidad del fondo, de la substancia del privilegio.
Francesa de Thiers?)
Se ha insinuado que si se permitiera al periodista ocultar la
Es verdad que el personal basico de la administracion de fuente de su informacion tratandose de asuntos publicos de
justicia esta compuesto de abogados, pero en la misma reconocida seriedad, ello fomentaria la intriga y la cobardia
decision de la mayoria se reconoce que la administracion de entre los ciudadanos, sancionando la abyectada anonimidad,
justicia es solo una de las principales funciones del gobierno y aquello de "tirar la piedra escondiendo la mano." El argumento
a renglon seguido se apunta el sistema de enseñanza tiene cierta fuerza, pero es de dobrel filo. Si se admite la falta o
publica (public school system) como otra funcion de flojedad del valor civico entre los ciudadanos "¿que de malo
importancia nacional. Entonces cabe preguntar: ¿porque no se hay en que, mientras se fomente y fortalezca esa virtud con la
va a considerar tambien envuelto el "interes del Estado" en los educacion de las masas y los habitos de una ciudadania
examenes de maestros, sobre todo si sonde servicio civil? No militante, se deje a la prensa cierta latitud y cierta libertad para
solo los maestros constituyen la base de nuestro sistema de sacar el mejor partido posible de la anonimidad informativa en
enseñanza publica, sino que incluso tienen mas envergadura sus campañas contra la corrupcion, los abusos y las anomalias?
nacional porque se cuentan por miles, formando la clase mas Con esto se lograria, por lo menos, que la prensa cumpliese y
numerosa de nuestros servidores publicos. Sin embargo, en realizase su cometido social concierta efecacia descorriendo
opinion de la mayoria los maestros no tienen suficiente calibre parte del velo, y dejando que el Estado, con sus agencias de
como los abogados para que se extienda aplicable a ellos la investigacion del crimen y de los chanchullos, haga el resto. Por
frase "interes del Estado" usada en la referida ley de Republica ejemplo, en el presente caso: ¿por quela Corte Suprema va a
No. 53. Este no es mas que uno de los absurdos a que conduce insistir en actuar como se fueseuna agencia policiaca? ¿por que
la arbitrariedad de la norma adoptada por la mayoria en su va a tratar al periodista como se este fuese un detective,
decision. obligandole a revelar todos sus datos, incluso los nombres de
sus informantes? Nos quejamos de nuestra impotencia ante al
silencio contumaz del recurrido: ¿por que no entregar el caso a
la National Bureau of Investigation — la famosa NBI cuya Voto en favor de la exoneracion de recurrido.
eficiencia todos reconocen — y dejar que la misma sea guien
se entienda con el recurrido y maneje la informacion de
estecon la tecnica y medios de que dispone para sus
investigaciones?
Footnotes
En realidad, el periodista ya rinde un buen serviciocuando
denuncia un anomalia si bien reservandose el nombre de su 1 Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil., 630.
informante. ¿Por que castigarle si insiste en conservar su
secreto, excepto cuando medie la seguridad del Estado y de la
BRIONES., dissenting:
Nacion, unica salvedad que establece la ley? Esta bien que no
se le premie o aplauda por el bien que hace, pero castigarle? Es
el colmo!
*"a menos que el tribunal encuentre que el interes
public requiere que se haga tal revelacion."
Es que, se dira, el periodista puede obrar de mal fe
denunciando unas anomalias imaginarias y provocando conello
*A menos que el tribunal encunetre que el interes del
un tremendo escandalo con todos los daños y perjuicios que Estado requiere que se haga tal revelacion."
de ello pueden seguirse para el buen nombre y la reputacion
de las personas y de las instituciones. Es verdad. No se puede
1"El interes del Estado" no es tan amplio y
negar que hay bribones en la prensa — esos que en otras comprensivo como "el interes publico", el cual incluye
ocasiones he llamado "tuisanes de la pluma," peores a veces casi todo, aunque de menor importancia con tal que
que los salteadores de caminos. Tampoco se puede negar que afecte al publico . . . .
hay lo que se llama prensa amarilla, dedicada a cultivar el
sensacionalismo malsano y morboso. Pero el remedio contra
esto no es la ley de la Republica No. 53 que nos ocupa; existen
otros remedios, unos en el codigo penal; otros, en la misma ley
de desacato; y otros, en el desprecio, repulsa y hostilidad de la
misma opinion publica, ya que, despues de todo, la prensa no
puede vivir sino del favor publico. Poco despues de la
liberacion un periodista publico un articulo virulento
denunciando supuestas anomalias o irrigularidades en relacion
con los examenes de abogados celebrados durente la
ocupacion japonesa. Se le emplazo para que probase sus
cargos. No los probo: era evidente la mala fe. Le castigamos
por desacato y si no se le impuso una pena mas severa fue
porque canto la palinodia retractandose. (Vease In re Francisco
Brillantes, por desacato.)

La Ley de la Republica No. 53 es una medida liberal, progresiva,


concebida y promulgada par capacitar la prensa a realizar su
transcendental cometido del mejor modo posible. La prensa es
una de las mas preciosas conquistas y posesiones de nuestra
civilizacion. Se puede prescindir de algunas cosas — jamas de
una prensa libre, veraz, eficiente. Sin este formidable
implemento social, la democracia no se puede concebir. Por
tanto, la ley debiera interpretarse libremente, hasta el maximo
grado de liberalidad, compatible con la vida y seguridad del
Estado.

El caso Sakdalan, que se origino en esta Corte, fue la causa


ocasional que determino la aprobacion de esa ley. Es, en
verdad, una deplorable coincidencia que el caso Sakdalan se
repita en esta misma Corte con el presente caso de Parazo, y
en peores terminos y circunstancias, pues mientrs a Sakdalan
se le tuvo arrestado por solamente dos dias, a Parazo se le va a
encarcelar ahora por un mes. Mucho me temo que esta
decision enturbie una ejecutoria tan preclara de liberalismo
como la que abrillanta nuestra jurisprudencia en materias sobre
libertad de imprenta.
B.M. No. 1222 February 4, 2004
Original Adjusted Adjusted
Relative
Subject Percentage Percentage Relative
Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS Weight
Weight Weight Weight

RESOLUTION Political and


International 15% 17.647% 3 3.53%
PER CURIAM: Law

Labor and
On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination Social 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
in Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Legislation
Bar Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored
leakage in the examination on the subject. After making his Civil law 15% 17.647% 3 3.53%
own inquiries, Justice Vitug reported the matter to Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and to the other members of the Court, Taxation 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
recommending that the bar examination on the subject be
Criminal law 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%
nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith. On
23 September 2003, the Court adopted the recommendation of Remedial Law 20% 23.529% 4 4.71%
Justice Vitug, and resolved to nullify the examination in
Mercantile Law and to hold another examination on 04 Legal Ethics
October 2003 at eight o’clock in the evening (being the earliest and Practical 5% 5.882% 1 1.18%
available time and date) at the De La Salle University, Taft Exercises
Avenue, Manila. The resolution was issued without prejudice to
any action that the Court would further take on the matter.
100% 20%
Following the issuance of the resolution, the Court received
numerous petitions and motions from the Philippine In another resolution, dated 14 October 2003, the Court
Association of Law Schools and various other groups and designated the following retired Associate Justices of the
persons, expressing agreement to the nullification of the bar Supreme Court to compose the Investigating Committee:
examinations in Mercantile Law but voicing strong reservations
against the holding of another examination on the subject.
Several reasons were advanced by petitioners or movants, Chairman: Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino
among these reasons being the physical, emotional and
Members: Justice Jose A.R. Melo
financial difficulties that would be encountered by the
Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
examinees, if another examination on the subject were to be
held anew. Alternative proposals submitted to the Court
included the spreading out of the weight of Mercantile Law The Investigating Committee was tasked to determine and
among the remaining seven bar subjects, i.e., to determine and identify the source of leakage, the parties responsible therefor
gauge the results of the examinations on the basis only of the or who might have benefited therefrom, recommend sanctions
performance of the examinees in the seven bar subjects. In a against all those found to have been responsible for, or who
resolution, dated 29 September 2003, the Court, finding merit would have benefited from, the incident in question and to
in the submissions, resolved to cancel the scheduled recommend measures to the Court to safeguard the integrity
examination in Mercantile Law on 04 October 2003 and to of the bar examinations.
allocate the fifteen percentage points among the seven bar
examination subjects. In the same resolution, the Court further On 15 January 2004, the Investigating Committee submitted its
resolved to create a Committee composed of three retired report and recommendation to the Court, herein reproduced in
members of the Court that would conduct a thorough full; thus -
investigation of the incident subject of the 23 September 2003
resolution.
"In the morning of September 21, 2003, the third Sunday of the
2003 bar examinations, the examination in commercial law was
In a resolution, dated 07 October 2003, the Court adopted the held in De la Salle University on Taft Avenue, Manila, the venue
computation in the allocation of the fifteen percentage points of the bar examinations since 1995. The next day, the
for Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar newspapers carried news of an alleged leakage in the said
examination subjects, to wit: examination.1

"Upon hearing the news and making preliminary inquiries of


his own, Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar
Examinations Committee, reported the matter to the Chief
Justice and recommended that the examination in mercantile
law be cancelled and that a formal investigation of the leakage The Committee held nine (9) meetings - six times to conduct
be undertaken. the investigation and three times to deliberate on its report.

"Acting on the report and recommendation of Justice Vitug, "ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSE C. VITUG, chairman of the Bar
the Court, in a resolution dated September 23, 2003, nullified Examinations Committee, testified that on Monday morning,
the examination in mercantile law and resolved to hold another September 22, 2003, the day after the Bar examination in
examination in that subject on Saturday, October 4, 2003 at mercantile or commercial law, upon arriving in his office in the
eight o’clock in the evening (being the earliest available time Supreme Court, his secretary,2 Rose Kawada, informed him that
and date) at the same venue. However, because numerous one of the law clerks, Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, told her
petitions, protests, and motions for reconsideration were filed that a friend of hers named Ma. Cecilia Delgado-Carbajosa, a
against the retaking of the examination in mercantile law, the bar examinee from Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City,
Court cancelled the holding of such examination. On the who was staying at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, confided to
recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Court her that something was wrong with the examination in
instead decided to allocate the fifteen (15) percentage points mercantile law, because previous to the examination, i.e., on
for mercantile law among the seven (7) other bar examination Saturday afternoon, the eve of the examination, she received a
subjects (Resolution dated October 7, 2003). copy of the test questions in that subject. She did not pay
attention to the test questions because no answers were
"In a Resolution dated September 29, 2003, the Supreme Court provided, and she was hard-pressed to finish her review of that
created an Investigating Committee composed of three (3) subject, using other available bar review materials, of which
retired Members of the Court to conduct an investigation of there were plenty coming from various bar review centers.
the leakage and to submit its findings and recommendations
on or before December 15, 2003. "However, upon perusing the questions after the examinations,
Cecilia noticed that many of them were the same questions
"The Court designated the following retired Associate Justices that were asked in the just-concluded-examination.
of the Supreme Court to compose the Committee:
"Justice Vitug requested Marlo to invite her friend to his office
in the Supreme Court, but Carbajosa declined the invitation. So,
Chairman: Justice CAROLINA GRIÑO-AQUINO
Justice Vitug suggested that Marlo and Rose invite Carbajosa
Members: Justice JOSE A. R. MELO to meet them at Robinson’s Place, Ermita. She agreed to do
Justice VICENTE V. MENDOZA that.

"The Investigating Committee was directed to determine and "Cecilia Carbajosa arrived at Robinson’s Place at the appointed
identify the source of the leakage, the parties responsible time and showed the test questions to Rose and Marlo. Rose
therefor and those who benefited therefrom, and to obtained a xerox copy of the leaked questions and compared
recommend measures to safeguard the integrity of the bar them with the bar questions in mercantile law. On the back of
examinations. the pages, she wrote, in her own hand, the differences she
noted between the leaked questions and the bar examination
"The investigation commenced on October 21, 2003 and questions.
continued up to November 7, 2003. The following witnesses
appeared and testified at the investigation: "Rose and Marlo delivered the copy of the leaked questions to
Justice Vitug who compared them with the bar examination
1. Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar questions in mercantile law. He found the leaked questions to
Examinations Committee; be the exact same questions which the examiner in mercantile
2. Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, law clerk in the office of law, Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted
Justice Vitug to him as chairman of the Bar Examinations Committee.
3. Atty. Marcial O. T. Balgos, examiner in mercantile law; However, not all of those questions were asked in the bar
4. Cheryl Palma, private secretary of Atty. Balgos; examination. According to Justice Vitug, only 75% of the final
5. Atty. Danilo De Guzman, assistant lawyer in the firm of bar questions were questions prepared by Atty. Balgos; 25%
Balgos & Perez; prepared by Justice Vitug himself, were included in the final bar
6. Atty. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner of Balgos & Perez; examination. The questions prepared by Justice Vitug were not
7. Eduardo J. F. Abella, reviewer in commercial law at the Lex among the leaked test questions.
Review Center;
8. Silvestre T. Atienza, office manager of Balgos & Perez; "Apart from the published news stories about the leakage,
9. Reynita Villasis, private secretary of Atty. De Guzman; Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Justice Vitug received, by
10. Ronan Garvida, fraternity brother of Atty. De Guzman; telephone and mail, reports of the leakage from Dean Mariano
11. Ronald F. Collado, most illustrious brother of the Beta F. Magsalin, Jr. of the Arellano Law Foundation (Exh. H) and a
Sigma Lambda Fraternity; certain Dale Philip R. De los Reyes (Exh. B -B-3), attaching
12. Jovito M. Salonga, Asst. Division Chief of Systems copies of the leaked questions and the fax transmittal sheet
Development for Judicial Application, MlSO; showing that the source of the questions was Danny De
Guzman who faxed them to Ronan Garvida on September 17, "He thought that his computer was safely insulated from third
2003, four days before the examination in mercantile law on parties, and that he alone had access to it. He was surprised to
September 21, 2003 (Exh. B-1). discover, when reports of the bar leakage broke out, that his
computer was in fact interconnected with the computers of his
"ATTORNEY MARLO MAGDOZA-MALAGAR was subpoenaed nine (9) assistant attorneys (tsn, pp. 30,45). As a matter of fact,
by the Committee. She identified the copy of the leaked the employees - Jovito M. Salonga and Benjamin R. Katly - of
questions that came from Cecilia Carbajosa (Exh. A). She the Court’s Management Information Systems Office (MISO)
testified that, according to Carbajosa, the latter received the who, upon the request of Atty. Balgos, were directed by the
test questions from one of her co-bar reviewees staying, like Investigating Committee to inspect the computer system in his
her, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, and also enrolled in the office, reported that there were 16, not 9, computers connected
review classes at the Lex Review Center at the corner of P. to each other via Local Area Network (LAN) and one (1) stand-
Faura Street and Roxas Boulevard, Ermita. She did not pay for alone computer connected to the internet (Exh. M). Atty.
the hand-out because the Lex Review Center gives them away Balgos’ law partner, former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez,
for free to its bar reviewees. also had a computer, but Perez took it away when he became
the Secretary of Justice.
"ATTORNEY MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS, 71 years of age, senior
partner in the law firm of BALGOS AND PEREZ with offices in "The nine (9) assistant attorneys with computers, connected to
Rm. 1009 West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Attorney Balgos’ computer, are:
Pasig City, testified that in November 2002, Justice Jose C.
Vitug, as chair of the Committee on the 2003 Bar Examinations, 1. Zorayda Zosobrado (she resigned in July 2003)
invited him to be the examiner in commercial law. He accepted 2. Claravel Javier
the assignment and almost immediately began the preparation 3. Rolynne Torio
of test questions on the subject. Using his personal computer 4. Mark Warner Rosal
in the law office, he prepared for three consecutive days, three 5. Charlynne Subia
(3) sets of test questions which covered the entire subject of 6. Danilo De Guzman (resigned on October 22, 2003 [Exh. D])
Mercantile Law (pp. 3-5, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). As he did not know 7. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner
how to prepare the questionnaire in final form, he asked his 8. Concepcion De los Santos
private secretary, Cheryl Palma, to format the questions (p. 13, 9. Pamela June Jalandoni
tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). And, as he did not know how to print the
questionnaire, he likewise asked Cheryl Palma to make a print- "Upon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the bar
out (Id., pp. 14-15). All of this was done inside his office with questions prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty. Balgos
only him and his secretary there. His secretary printed only one immediately called together and questioned his office staff. He
copy (Id., p. 15). He then placed the printed copy of the test interrogated all of them except Atty. Danilo De Guzman who
questions, consisting of three sets, in an envelope which he was absent then. All of them professed to know nothing about
sealed, and called up Justice Vitug to inform him that he was the bar leakage.
bringing the questions to the latter’s office that afternoon.
However, as Justice Vitug was leaving his office shortly, he "He questioned Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, Atienza is
advised Atty. Balgos to give the sealed envelope to his only a second year law student at MLQU. But he is an expert in
confidential assistant who had been instructed to keep it. When installing and operating computers. It was he and/or his
Atty. Balgos arrived in the office of Justice Vitug, he was met by brother Gregorio who interconnected the computers in the law
Justice Vitug’s confidential assistant to whom he entrusted the office, including Attorney Balgos’ computer, without the latter’s
sealed envelope containing the test questions (pp. 19-26, tsn, knowledge and permission.
Oct. 24, 2003).

"Atienza admitted to Attorney Balgos that he participated in


"Atty. Balgos admitted that he does not know how to operate a the bar operations or ‘bar ops’ of the Beta Sigma Lambda law
computer except to type on it. He does not know how to open fraternity of which he is a member, but he clarified that his
and close his own computer which has a password for that participation consisted only of bringing food to the MLQU bar
purpose. In fact, he did not know, as he still does, the examinees (Tsn, pp. 46-47, Oct. 24, 2003).
password. It is his secretary, Cheryl Palma, who opened and
closed his computer for him (p. 45, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).
"The next day, Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo De
Guzman, also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity,
"Atty. Balgos testified that he did not devise the password FEU chapter. De Guzman admitted to him that he downloaded
himself. It was Cheryl Palma who devised it (Id., p. 71). the test questions from Attorney Balgos’ computer and faxed a
copy to a fraternity brother. Attorney Balgos was convinced
"His computer is exclusively for his own use. It is located inside that De Guzman was the source of the leakage of his test
his room which is locked when he is not in the office. He comes questions in mercantile law (Tsn, p. 52, Oct. 24, 2003).
to the office every other day only.
"Attorney Balgos prepared a COMPARISON (Exh. E) of the quizzers for a book that Atty. Balgos might be preparing. He
juxtaposed final bar questions and his proposed test questions, saved them in his hard disk.
with marginal markings made by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
(Ret.), indicating whether the questions are similar: (S); or "He thought of faxing the test questions to one of his fraternity
different: (D), together with the percentage points ‘brods,’ a certain Ronan Garvida who, De Guzman thought, was
corresponding to each question. On the basis of this taking the 2003 bar examinations. Garvida is also a law
comparative table and Atty. Balgos’ indications as to which graduate from FEU. He had taken the 2002 bar examinations,
questions were the same or different from those given in the but did not pass.
final questionnaire, Justice Mendoza computed the credit
points contained in the proposed leaked questions. The "On September 17, 2003, four days before the mercantile law
proposed questions constituted 82% of the final bar questions. bar examination, De Guzman faxed a copy of the 12-page-test
Attached to this Report as Annex A is the comparative table questions (Exhs. I, I-1, I-2, I-3) to Garvida because earlier he was
and the computation of credit points marked as Exh. E-1. informed by Garvida that he was retaking the bar examinations.
He advised Garvida to share the questions with other ‘Betan’
"CHERYL PALMA, 34 years old, private secretary of Attorney examinees. He allegedly did not charge anything for the test
Balgos for the past six years, testified that she did not type the questions. Later, after the examination was over, Garvida
test questions. She admitted, however, that it was she who ‘texted’ (sent a text message on his cell phone) him (De
formatted the questions and printed one copy as directed by Guzman), that he did not take the bar examination.
her employer. She confirmed Atty. Balgos’ testimony regarding
her participation in the operation of his personal computer. She "Besides Garvida, De Guzman faxed the mercantile law bar
disclosed that what appears in Atty. Balgos’ computer can be questions to another fraternity brother named Arlan (surname
seen in the neighborhood network if the other computers are unknown), through Reynita (Nanette) Villasis, his secretary (Tsn,
open and not in use; that Silvestre Atienza of the accounting pp. 20-28, Oct. 29, 2003). But he himself faxed the questions to
section, can access Atty. Balgos’ computer when the latter is still another ‘brod’ named Erwin Tan who had helped him
open and not in use. during the ‘bar ops’ in 1998 when he (De Guzman) took the bar
examinations (Id., p. 28). He obtained the cell phone numbers
"ATTORNEY ENRICO VELASCO, managing partner of the firm, of Arlan and Erwin Tan from Gabby Tanpiengco whom he
testified that on October 16, 2003, he sent De Guzman a memo informed by text message, that they were ‘guide questions,’ not
(Exh. C) giving him ‘72 hours to explain in writing why you tips, in the mercantile law examination.
should not be terminated for causing the Firm an undeserved
condemnation and dishonor because of the leakage aforesaid.’ "When he was confronted by Attorney Velasco on Wednesday
after the examination, (news of the leakage was already in all
"On October 22, 2003, De Guzman handed in his resignation the newspapers), De Guzman admitted to Attorney Velasco
‘effective immediately.’ He explained that: that he faxed the questions to his fraternity brothers, but he
did not reveal where he got the test questions.
‘Causing the firm, its partners and members to suffer from
undeserved condemnation and humiliation is not only farthest "De Guzman received a text message from Erwin Tan
from, but totally out of, my mind. It is just unfortunate that the acknowledging that he received the test questions. However,
incident subject matter of your memorandum occurred. Rest Erwin informed him that the questions were ‘kalat na kalat’ (all
assured, though, that I have never been part of any deliberate over the place) even if he did not share them with others (Tsn,
scheme to malign the good reputation and integrity of the pp. 54-55, Oct. 29, 2003).
firm, its partners and members.’ (Exh. D)
"De Guzman also contacted Garvida who informed him that he
"DANILO DE GUZMAN testified that he joined Balgos & Perez gave copies of the test questions to Betans Randy Iñigo and
in April 2000. He obtained his LLB degree from FEU in 1998. As James Bugain.
a student, he was an awardee for academic excellence. He
passed the 1998 bar examinations with a grade of 86.4%. In "Arlan also ‘texted’ De Guzman that almost all the questions
FEU, he joined the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity which has were asked in the examination. Erwin Tan commented that
chapters in MLQU, UE and MSU (Mindanao State University). As many of the leaked questions were asked in the examination,
a member of the fraternity, he was active during bar ‘pero hindi exacto; mi binago’ (they were not exactly the same;
examinations and participated in the fraternity’s ‘bar ops.’ there were some changes).

"He testified that sometime in May 2003, when he was "De Guzman tried to text Garvida, but he received no response.
exploring Atty. Balgos’ computer, (which he often did without
the owner’s knowledge or permission), to download materials
"De Guzman disclosed that he learned how to operate a
which he thought might be useful to save for future use, he
computer from Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, and
found and downloaded the test questions in mercantile law
through self-study, by asking those who are knowledgeable on
consisting of 12 pages. He allegedly thought they were
computers. He has been using computers since 1997, and he
bought his own computer in 2001, a Pentium 3, which he uses usefulness of the test questions, but Randy who has a high
at home. regard for De Guzman, believed that the questions were ‘tips.’
Garvida did not fax the questions to any other person than
"REYNITA VILLASIS, the 36-year-old legal secretary of Attorney Randy Iñigo. He allegedly did not sell the questions to Randy. ‘I
De Guzman, submitted her affidavit (Exh. F) and orally affirmed could not do that to a brod,’ he explained.
her participation in the reproduction and transmittal by fax of
the leaked test questions in mercantile law to Ronan Garvida "In view of the fact that one of the copies of the leaked test
and Arlan, as testified by De Guzman. questions (Exh. H) bore on the left margin a rubber stamp
composed of the Greek initials ‘BEA-MLQU,’ indicating that the
"RONAN GARVIDA, appeared before the Investigating source of that copy was the Beta Sigma Lambda chapter at
Committee in compliance with the subpoena that was issued to MLQU, the Committee subpoenaed Ronald Collado, the Most
him. Garvida graduated from FEU College of Law in 2000. He is Illustrious Brother of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity of
about 32 years of age. While still a student in 1998, he was MLQU.
afflicted with multiple sclerosis or MS, a disease of the nervous
system that attacks the nerve sheaths of the brain and spinal "RONALD COLLADO is a senior law student at the MLQU. He
cord. It is a chronic disabling disease although it may have admitted that his fraternity conducted ‘Bar Ops’ for the 2003
periods of remission. It causes its victim to walk with erratic, bar exams. Bar Ops are the biggest activity of the fraternity
stiff and staggering gait; the hands and fingers may tremble in every year. They start as soon as new officers of the fraternity
performing simple actions; the eyesight can be impaired, and are elected in June, and they continue until the bar
speech may be slow and slurred (p. 737, Vol. 2, Reader’s Digest examinations are over. The bar operations consist of soliciting
Medical Encyclopedia, 1971 Ed., compiled by Benjamin F. Miller, funds from alumni brods and friends to be spent in
M.D.). All these symptoms were present when Garvida testified reproducing bar review materials for the use of their ‘barristers’
before the Committee on November 6, 2003 to answer its (bar candidates) in the various review centers, providing meals
questions regarding his involvement in the leakage of the for their ‘brod’-barristers on examination days; and to rent a
examiner’s test questions in mercantile law. ‘bar site’ or place near De la Salle University where the
examinees and the frat members can convene and take their
"Garvida testified that when he was a freshman at FEU, he meals during the break time. The Betans’ bar site for the 2003
became a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity where bar examinations was located on Leon Guinto Street, Malate.
he met and was befriended by Attorney De Guzman who was On September 19 and 21, before [the] start of the examination,
his senior by one and a half years. Although they had been out Collado’s fraternity distributed bar review materials for the
of touch since he went home to the province on account of the mercantile law examination to the examinees who came to the
recurrence of his illness, De Guzman was able [to] get this cell bar site. The test questions (Exh. H) were received by Collado
phone number from his compadre, Atty. Joseph Pajara. De from a brod, Alan Guiapal, who had received them from Randy
Guzman told Garvida that he was faxing him ‘possible Iñigo.
questions in the bar examination in mercantile law.’ Because
the test questions had no answers, De Guzman stressed that "Collado caused 30 copies of the test questions to be printed
they were not ‘tips’ but only ‘possible test questions.’ with the logo and initials of the fraternity (BEA-MLQU) for
distribution to the 30 MLQU examinees taking the bar exams.
"Garvida had intended to take the 2003 bar examinations. He Because of time constraints, frat members were unable to
enrolled in the Consortium Review Center in FEU, paying answer the test questions despite the clamor for answers, so,
P10,000.00 as enrollment fee. However, on his way to the they were given out ‘as is’ - without answers.
Supreme Court to file his application to take the bar
examination, he suffered pains in his wrist - symptoms that his "DEAN EDUARDO J. F. ABELLA of the Jose Rizal University law
MS had recurred. His physician advised him to go to the school in Mandaluyong City, was the reviewer in Mercantile
National Orthopedic Hospital in Quezon City for treatment. Law and Practical Exercises at the Lex Review Center which is
This he did. operated by the Lex Review & Seminars Inc., of which Dean
Abella is one of the incorporators. He learned about the
"He gave up his plan to take the 2003 bar examinations. leakage of test questions in mercantile law when he was
Nevertheless, he continued to attend the review classes at the delivering the pre-week lecture on Legal Forms at the Arellano
Consortium Review Center because he did not want to waste University. The leaked questions were shown to him by his
completely the P10,000-enrollment fee that he paid for the secretary, Jenylyn Domingo, after the mercantile law exam. He
review course (‘Nahihinayang ako’). That was presumably why missed the Saturday lecture in mercantile law because he was
De Guzman thought that Garvida was taking the bar exams and suffering from a touch of flu. He gave his last lecture on the
sent him a copy of the test questions in mercantile law. subject on Wednesday or Thursday before the exam. He denied
having bought or obtained and distributed the leaked test
"Upon receipt of the test questions, Garvida faxed a copy to his questions in Mercantile Law to the bar reviewees in the Lex
‘brod’ Randy Iñigo who was reviewing at the Consortium Review Center.
Review Center. Randy photocopied them for distribution to
other fraternity brods. Some of the brods doubted the
"F I N D I N G S "He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers’ Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that ‘[a] lawyer shall
"The Committee finds that the leaked test questions in uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
Mercantile Law were the questions which the examiner, promote respect for law and legal processes.’
Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to
Justice Jose C. Vitug, as chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations "By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to
Committee. The questions constituted 82% of the questions some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly
asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning of for pecuniary profit and to given them undue advantage over
September 21, 2003, Sunday, in some cases with slight changes the other examiners in the mercantile law examination, De
which were not substantial and in other cases exactly as Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity
proposed by Atty. Balgos. Hence, any bar examinee who was brothers in the examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of
able to get hold of the leaked questions before the mercantile Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
law examination and answered them correctly, would have Responsibility for members of the Bar, which provide:
been assured of passing the examination with at least a grade
of 82%! Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct
"The circumstance that the leaked test questions consisted
entirely of test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos, proves Canon 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
conclusively that the leakage originated from his office, not INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
from the Office of Justice Vitug, the Bar Examinations SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Chairman.
"De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a
"Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were member of the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting
prepared by him on his computer. Without any doubt, the respect for it and degraded the noble profession of law instead
source of the leaked test questions was Atty. Balgos’ computer. of upholding its dignity and integrity. His actuations impaired
The culprit who stole or downloaded them from Atty. Balgos’ public respect for the Court, and damaged the integrity of the
computer without the latter’s knowledge and consent, and who bar examinations as the final measure of a law graduate’s
faxed them to other persons, was Atty. Balgos’ legal assistant, academic preparedness to embark upon the practice of law.
Attorney Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily confessed the
deed to the Investigating Committee. De Guzman revealed that However, the Investigating Committee does not believe that De
he faxed the test questions, with the help of his secretary Guzman was solely responsible for the leakage of Atty. Balgos’
Reynita Villasis, to his fraternity ‘brods,’ namely, Ronan Garvida, proposed test questions in the mercantile law examination. The
Arlan (whose surname he could not recall), and Erwin Tan. Committee does not believe that he acted alone, or did not
have the assistance and cooperation of other persons, such as:
"In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test questions to Betans
Randy Iñigo and James Bugain. "Cheryl Palma, Atty. Balgos’ private secretary, who, according to
Atty. Balgos himself, was the only person who knew the
"Randy Iñigo passed a copy or copies of the same questions to password, who could open and close his computer; and who
another Betan, Alan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the MLQU- had the key to his office where his computer was kept. Since a
Beta Sigma [Lambda’s] Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald F. computer may not be accessed or downloaded unless it is
Collado, who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies opened, someone must have opened Atty. Balgos’ computer in
to the MLQU’s 30 bar candidates. order for De Guzman to retrieve the test questions stored
therein.
"Attorney Danilo De Guzman’s act of downloading Attorney
Balgos’ test questions in mercantile law from the latter’s "Silvestre Atienza, also a fraternity ‘brod’ of De Guzman, who
computer, without his knowledge and permission, was a was responsible for interconnecting Atty. Balgos’ computer
criminal act of larceny. It was theft of intellectual property; the with the other computers outside Atty. Balgos’ room or office,
test questions were intellectual property of Attorney Balgos, and who was the only other person, besides Cheryl Palma, who
being the product of his intellect and legal knowledge. knew the password of Atty. Balgos’ computer.

"Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful "The following persons who received from De Guzman, and
infraction of Attorney Balgos’ right to privacy of distributed copies of the leaked test questions, appear to have
communication, and to security of his papers and effects conspired with him to steal and profit from the sale of the test
against unauthorized search and seizure - rights zealously questions. They could not have been motivated solely by a
protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution (Sections 2 desire to help the fraternity, for the leakage was widespread
and 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution). (‘kalat na kalat’) according to Erwin Tan. The possible co-
conspirators were:
Ronan Garvida, diminishes the public’s respect for the legal profession, should
Arlan, be disciplined.
Erwin Tan,
Randy Iñigo, "After careful deliberation, the Investigating Committee
Ronald Collado, and recommends that:
Allan Guiapal
"1. Attorney Danilo De Guzman be DISBARRED for he
"The Committee does not believe that De Guzman recklessly had shown that he is morally unfit to continue as a
broke the law and risked his job and future as a lawyer, out of member of the legal profession, for grave dishonesty,
love for the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity. There must have lack of integrity, and criminal behavior. In addition, he
been an ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law should make a written PUBLIC APOLOGY and pay
and tearing the shroud of secrecy that, he very well knows, DAMAGES to the Supreme Court for involving it in
covers the bar examinations. another ‘bar scandal,’ causing the cancellation of the
mercantile law examination, and wreaking havoc upon
"On the other hand, the Committee finds that the theft of the the image of this institution.
test questions from Atty. Balgos’ computer could have been
avoided if Atty. Balgos had exercised due diligence in "2. Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos should be
safeguarding the secrecy of the test questions which he REPRIMANDED by the Court and likewise be required
prepared. As the computer is a powerful modern machine to make a written APOLOGY to the Court for the
which he admittedly is not fairly familiar with, he should not public scandal he brought upon it as a result of his
have trusted it to deep secret the test questions that he stored negligence and lack of due care in preparing and
in its hard disk. He admittedly did not know the password of safeguarding his proposed test questions in
his computer. He relied on his secretary to use the password to mercantile law. As the Court had to cancel the
open and close his computer. He kept his computer in a room Mercantile Law examination on account of the
to which other persons had access. Unfamiliar with the use of ‘leakage’ of Attorney Balgos’ test questions, which
the machine whose potential for mischief he could not have comprised 82% of the bar questions in that
been totally unaware of, he should have avoided its use for so examination, Atty. Balgos is not entitled to receive any
sensitive an undertaking as typing the questions in the bar honorarium as examiner for that subject.
examination. After all he knew how to use the typewriter in the
use of which he is quite proficient. Atty. Balgos should "3. FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De Guzman,
therefore have prepared the test questions in his trusty Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan,
typewriter, in the privacy of his home, (instead of his law office), Erwin Tan, Randy Iñigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado
where they would have been safe from the prying eyes of and Allan Guiapal by the National Bureau of
secretaries and assistant attorneys. Atty. Balgos’ negligence in Investigation and the Philippine National Police, with a
the preparation and safekeeping of his proposed test questions view to their criminal prosecution as probable co-
for the bar examination in mercantile law, was not the conspirators in the theft and leakage of the test
proximate cause of the ‘bar leakage;’ it was, in fact, the root questions in mercantile law.
cause. For, if he had taken those simple precautions to protect
the secrecy of his papers, nobody could have stolen them and
"With regard to recommending measures to safeguard the
copied and circulated them. The integrity of the bar
integrity of the bar examinations and prevent a repetition of
examinations would not have been sullied by the scandal. He
future leakage in the said examinations, inasmuch as this
admitted that ‘Mali siguro ako, but that was what happened’
matter is at present under study by the Court’s Committee on
(43 tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).
Legal Education and Bar Matters, as an aspect of proposals for
bar reforms, the Investigating Committee believes it would be
"R E C O M M E N D A T I O N well-advised to refrain from including in this report what may
turn out to be duplicative, if not contrary, recommendations on
"This Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. the matter."3
5713, June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 276, pronounced the following
reminder for lawyers: ‘Members of the bar must do nothing The Court adopts the report, including with some modifications
that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the the recommendation, of the Investigating Committee. The
public in the fidelity, the honesty and integrity of the Court, certainly will not countenance any act or conduct that
profession.’ In another case, it likewise intoned: ‘We cannot can impair not only the integrity of the Bar Examinations but
overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the the trust reposed on the Court.
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
The Court also takes note that Mr. Jovito M. Salonga and Mr.
courts, and to his clients.’ (Reyes v. Javier, A.C. No. 5574,
Benjamin R. Katly, two of its employees assigned to the
February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes without saying that a
Management Information Systems Office (MISO), who were
lawyer who violates this precept of the profession by
tasked by the Investigating Committee to inspect the computer
committing a gross misconduct which dishonors and
system in the office of Atty. Balgos, found that the Court’s
Computer-Assisted Legal Research (CALR) database4 was Footnotes
installed in the computer used by Atty. Balgos. Mr. Salonga and
Mr. Katly reported that the system, which was developed by the 1
The leakage was reported on the newspapers on
MISO, was intended for the exclusive use of the Court. The Tuesday, 23 September 2003.
installation thereof to any external computer would be
unauthorized without the permission of the Court. Atty. Velasco 2A Law clerk in his office, Atty. Rosalinda E. Beltran-
informed the two Court employees that the CALR database was
Kawada.
installed by Atty. De Guzman on the computer being used by
Atty. Balgos. The matter would also need further investigation
to determine how Atty. De Guzman was able to obtain a copy
3 Report of the Investigating Committee on the
of the Court’s CALR database. Leakage of the Examiner’s Bar Examination Questions
in Mercantile Law.
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of
the Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to -
4The CALR database contains Supreme Court
decisions from May 1996 to May 2002. It also has a
proprietary search engine.
(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the
practice of law effective upon his receipt of this
RESOLUTION;

(2) REPRIMAND Atty. MARCIAL O.T. BALGOS and


DISENTITLE him from receiving any honorarium as an
Examiner in Mercantile Law;

(3) Direct the National Bureau of Investigation (a) to


undertake further investigation of Danilo De Guzman,
Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Erwin
Tan, Randy Iñigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and
Allan Guiapal with a view to determining their
participation and respective accountabilities in the bar
examination leakage and to conduct an investigation
on how Danilo De Guzman was able to secure a copy
of the Supreme Court’s CALR database.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of the records of


Danilo De Guzman in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme
Court of the Philippines, and copies to be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated by the Office of
the Court Administrator to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-


Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on official leave.
Tinga, J., No part. Close to family of one of the parties involved
in bar scandal.
B.M. No. 1222 April 24, 2009 time, he initiated several projects benefiting the youth in their
barangay.
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and eventually pursuing
Bachelor of Laws. In his second year in law school, he was
ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, elected as the President of the Student Council of the Institute
of Law of the Far Eastern University (FEU). Here, he
spearheaded various activities including the conduct of
RESOLUTION
seminars for law students as well as the holding of bar
operations for bar examinees.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and
This treats the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion student leader, petitioner still managed to excel in his studies.
dated November 10, 2008 filed by petitioner Danilo de Thus, he was conferred an Academic Excellence Award upon his
Guzman. He prays that this Honorable Court "in the exercise of graduation in Bachelor of Laws.
equity and compassion, grant petitioner’s plea for judicial
clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member
Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner
in good standing of the Philippine Bar."1
immediately entered government service as a Legal Officer
assigned at the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig. Simultaneously,
To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a he also rendered free legal services to less fortunate residents
Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222, the dispositive portion of which of Taguig City who were then in need of legal assistance.
reads in part:
In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the Lawyers at the Balgos and Perez Law Offices. It was during his
Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to — stay with this firm when his craft as a lawyer was polished and
developed. Despite having entered private practice, he
(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law continued to render free legal services to his fellow
effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION; Taguigeños.

xxxx Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioner’s


flourishing career was cut short as he was stripped of his
The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in license to practice law for his alleged involvement in the
Mercantile Law during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at leakage in the 2003 Bar Examinations.
that time was employed as an assistant lawyer in the law firm
of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos, was Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside his
the examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar house to avoid the rather unavoidable consequences of his
examinations. The Court had adopted the findings of the disbarment.
Investigating Committee, which identified petitioner as the
person who had downloaded the test questions from the On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in
computer of Balgos and faxed them to other persons. life when he was taken as a consultant by the City Government
of Taguig. Later, he was designated as a member of the
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably Secretariat of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For
recommended the reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine the next five (5) years, petitioner concentrated mainly on
Bar. In a Report dated January 6, 2009, the OBC rendered its rendering public service.
assessment of the petition, the relevant portions of which we
quote hereunder: Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his
act which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar
Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to examinations. As could be borne from the records of the
fulfill his father’s childhood dream to become one. This task investigation, he cooperated fully in the investigation
was not particularly easy for him and his family but he willed to conducted and took personal responsibility for his actions.
endure the same in order to pay tribute to his parents. Also, he has offered his sincerest apologies to Atty. Balgos, to
the Court as well as to all the 2003 bar examinees for the
Petitioner added that even at a very young age, he already unforeseen and unintended effects of his actions.
imposed upon himself the duty of rendering service to his
fellowmen. At 19 years, he started his exposure to public Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes
service when he was elected Chairman of the Sangguniang and has taken the said humbling experience to make him a
Kabataan (SK) of Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this better person.
Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the 8) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-
following testimonials and endorsements of various individuals Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga
and entities all attesting to his good moral character: Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA)
kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran
1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, "Resolution Expressing ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang
Full Support to Danilo G. De Guzman in his Application for Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng
Judicial Clemency, Endorsing his Competence and Fitness to be Isang Abogado" dated 8 July 2008 of the Samahang Bisig
Reinstated as a Member of the Philippine Bar and for Other Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA);
Purposes" dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
City of Taguig; 9) Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, "A Resolution
Recognizing the Contributions of Danilo G. De Guzman to the
2) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas- People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) – Taguig City, Attesting
Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga to his Utmost Dedication and Commitment to the Call of Civic
Kasapi ng Southeast People’s Village Homeowners Association, and Social Duty and for Other Purposes" dated 11 July 2008 of
Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB);
Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong
Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya 10) "A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial Forgiveness
ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of and Compassion in Favor of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated 14
the Southeast People’s Village Homeowners Association, Inc. July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval, Professor, College of Law,
(SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City of Taguig; San Sebastian College – Recoletos;

3) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas- 11) "An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral
Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated 5
Kasapi ng Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc. September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog, Deputy Grand
(SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong [Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and President, General Parent-
Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag- Teacher Association, Taguig National High School, Lower
susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang Bicutan, Taguig City;
mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of the
Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc. (SAREMAC), Lower 12) "Testimonial Letter" dated 5 September 2008 of Atty.
Bicutan, City of Taguig; Primitivo C. Cruz, President, Taguig Lawyers League, Inc.,
Tuktukan, Taguig City;
4) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-
Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga 13) "Testimonial Letter" dated 21 October 2008 of Judge Hilario
Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI) L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, Regional Trail Court (RTC), Branch
Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G. Danilo G. De 218, Quezon City; and
Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at
ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang 14) "Testimonial Letter" dated 28 October 2008 of Justice Oscar
Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" M. Herrera, former Justice, Court of Appeals and former Dean,
dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG Institute of Law, Far Eastern University (FEU).
KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA), Sta. Ana,
City of Taguig;
Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that
he be afforded the same kindness and compassion in order
5) "An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the Competence and that, like Atty. Basa, his promising future may not be
Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman as to Warrant the Grant of perpetually foreclosed. In the said case, the Court had the
Judicial Clemency and his Reinstatement as Member of the occasion to say:
Philippine Bar" dated 8 June 2007 of Miguelito Nazareno V.
Llantino, Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;
Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age, admitted
to the bars of California and the Philippine Islands. Recently, he
6) "Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual Competence of was charged in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila
Danilo G. De Guzman to be Truly Deserving of Judicial with the crime of abduction with consent, was found guilty in a
Clemency and Compassion" dated 5 July 2007 of Rev. Fr. Paul decision rendered by the Honorable M.V. De Rosario, Judge of
G. Balagtas, Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne; First Instance, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period
of two years, eleven months and eleven days of prision
7) "Testimonial Letter" dated 18 February 2008 of Atty. Loreto correccional. On appeal, this decision was affirmed in a
C. Ata, President, Far Eastern University Law Alumni Association judgment handed down by the second division of the Supreme
(FEULAA), Far Eastern University (FEU); Court.

xxxx
When come next, as we must, to determine the exact action his constituents, colleagues as well as people of known probity
which should be taken by the court, we do so regretfully and in the community and society.
reluctantly. On the one hand, the violation of the criminal law
by the respondent attorney cannot be lightly passed over. On Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he
the other hand, we are willing to strain the limits of our had already manifested his intense desire to render public
compassion to the uttermost in order that so promising a service as evidenced by his active involvement and
career may not be utterly ruined. participation in several social and civic projects and activities.
Likewise, even during and after his disbarment, which could be
Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circumspect perceived by some as a debilitating circumstance, petitioner
in his actions and solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone still managed to continue extending his assistance to others in
for his misdeeds. whatever means possible. This only proves petitioner’s strength
of character and positive moral fiber.
There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein
Petition. However, still, it is of no question that petitioner’s act in
copying the examination questions from Atty. Balgos’
In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s computer without the latter’s knowledge and consent, and
Oath (Bar Matter 712), which may be applied in the instant which questions later turned out to be the bar examinations
case, the Court said: questions in Mercantile Law in the 2003 Bar Examinations, is
not at all commendable. While we do believe that petitioner
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow sincerely did not intend to cause the damage that his action
petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly compromising
the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court.
following admonition:
We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court and has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view
recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral of the circumstances and likewise for humanitarian
fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is considerations, the penalty of disbarment may now be
a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and commuted to suspension. Considering the fact, however, that
public service. petitioner had already been disbarred for more than five (5)
years, the same may be considered as proper service of said
commuted penalty and thus, may now be allowed to resume
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all
practice of law.
efforts, to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial
notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully
and uncalculating. recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency
and Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner
DANILO G. DE GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioner’s disbarment
xxxx
is now commuted to suspension, which suspension is
considered as served in view of the petitioner’s five (5) year
Meanwhile, in the case of Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael disbarment. Hence, petitioner may now be allowed to resume
F. Mejia (Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding practice of law.
whether or not to reinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law
stated:
The recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant is well-
taken in part. We deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the
The Court will take into consideration the applicant’s character extent of commuting his penalty to seven (7) years suspension
and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years he has
of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct already served his disbarment.
subsequent to the disbarment and the time that has elapsed in
between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders.2 While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show
the practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
from the practice of law. It is of no doubt that petitioner had a purpose.3
promising future ahead of him where it not for the decision of
the Court stripping off his license.
In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the
supreme penalty of disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we
Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but have taken into account the remorse of the disbarred
likewise, after his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by lawyer4 and the conduct of his public life during his years
outside of the bar.5 For example, in Valencia v. Antiniw, we WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial
held: Clemency and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The
disbarment of DANILO G. DE GUZMAN from the practice of law
However, the record shows that the long period of is hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION
respondent's disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4,
of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to 2004.
demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again
to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every SO ORDERED.
member of the bar and officer of the court. During
respondent's disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
date for his professional infraction, he has been persistent in Associate Justice
reiterating his apologies and pleas for reinstatement to the
practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show that he WE CONCUR:
has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and
humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an elected
REYNATO S. PUNO
public servant, as attested to by numerous civic and
Chief Justice
professional organizations, government institutions, public
officials and members of the judiciary.6
LEONARDO A.
And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7 we noted: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia’s
disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and RENATO C. CORONA
MARTINEZ
the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy Associate Justice
Associate Justice
of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition
for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the
rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other CONCHITA CARPIO
DANTE O. TINGA
transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown MORALES
Associate Justice
remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this Associate Justice
experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. x x x
MINITA V. CHICO- PRESBITERO J.
Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected NAZARIO VELASCO, JR.
of him considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more Associate Justice Associate Justice
to his favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his
disbarment towards public service, particularly with the
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-
People’s Law Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by
NACHURA DE CASTRO
his peers in the community and other esteemed members of
Associate Justice Associate Justice
the legal profession, such as retired Court of Appeals Associate
Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin
Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive Associate Justice Associate Justice
impact on society at large since the unfortunate events of 2003.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Petitioner’s subsequent track record in public service affords
Associate Justice
the Court some hope that if he were to reacquire membership
in the Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer would
Footnotes
redound to the general good and more than mitigate the stain
* On official leave.
on his record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted. 1
Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion (hereinafter, Petition),
Nonetheless, we wish to impart to him the following stern p. 26.
warning: 2
Bernardo v. Mejia, A.C. No. 2984, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 639.
3
Id.
"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly
4
See Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100643,
bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 201.
5
A.C. No. 1302, 1391, 1543, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 503.
him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, 6
Id. at 515.
to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of 7
Supra note 2 at 643.
society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a 8
Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004, 442 SCRA 324,
pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous 341.
elements of the body politic."8
A.C. No. 5148 July 1, 2003 subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on
October 27 and 29, 1998. The latter neither appeared on the
ATTY. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit.
vs. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint4 for
ATTY. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR., respondent. estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila.5 On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of
PANGANIBAN, J.: Arrest6 against Pan.

Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the
civility. The bickering and the hostility of their clients should Warrant of Arrest.7 He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga
not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and
professionals and members of the bar. damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture
against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.

The Case
When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that it
was Pan who had decided to institute the civil action against
Before us is a Sworn Complaint1 filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes
Atty. Reyes. Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client
with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court, seeking the
to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the
disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his
dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to
lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
reach a settlement.
Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline resolved to suspend him as In his Comment8 dated January 27, 2000, respondent argued
follows: that he had shown no disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes as
co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884. He claimed that there was
no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it
"x x x [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his
had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He alleged that
oath which binds him to the obligation that he will not
Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
because of the irregularities the latter had committed in
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
conducting the criminal investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor
same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Salanga had resolved to file the estafa case despite the
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct
pendency of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit
himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
Counter-Affidavits and Evidence,9 of the appeal10 to the justice
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
secretary, and of the Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings.11
tactics against opposing counsel. In impleading
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No.
4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal On the other hand, complainant was impleaded, because he
ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing the estafa case,
office as well as the above-quoted Canon of the Code which the former knew fully well was baseless. According to
of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby respondent, the irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) in the criminal investigation and complainant’s connivance
years."2 therein were discovered only after the institution of the
collection suit.

The Facts
The Third Division of this Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation.12 Thereafter, the
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January
Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002
1998, his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu,3 a Chinese-
Resolution.13
Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry. Xu
invested P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and
seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City.
Eventually, the former discovered that the latter had not In her Report and Recommendation,14 Commissioner Milagros
established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money V. San Juan, to whom the case was assigned by the IBP for
back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to investigation and report, averred that complainant and
seek legal assistance. Prosecutor Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884
on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa filed against respondent’s client. In his Comment, respondent
against Pan, who was represented by respondent. The himself claimed that "the reason x x x was x x x the irregularities
Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned to Assistant of the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent
Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a damages."
Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with grounds stated therein deliberately refused to correct his errors
damages had been filed purposely to obtain leverage against and consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an invalid
the estafa case, in which respondent’s client was the defendant. information and warrant of arrest.
There was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga, since they had never participated in the business "29. Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of
transactions between Pan and Xu. Improper and highly defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless connived with the latter to
questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and harass and extort money from plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said
complainant in the civil case instituted by respondent on the criminal prosecution in the manner contrary to law, morals and
alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the suit was filed to harass public policy, resulting to the arrest of said plaintiff and causing
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]"17

Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had no ground We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint
to implead Prosecutor Salanga and complainant in Civil Case and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen
No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office complainant’s allegation that the civil action was intended to
and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP gain leverage against the estafa case. If respondent or his client
adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation for did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution, they should
his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years. have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies.
Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a
This Court’s Ruling Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of
Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an information for estafa.
We agree with the IBP’s recommendation.
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered could show that the estafa case was filed without basis.
to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a against complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that
consequence.15 Membership in the bar imposes upon them the two had conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer, respondent
certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the should have advised his client of the availability of these
legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had no justification.
fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall conduct himself The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional Salanga in the business transaction subject of the collection
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that
counsel." case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a
personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the
Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. Civil inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a
Case No. 4884 was for the "collection of a sum of money, misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be
damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture." to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later them.18
modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers
The Amended and Supplemental Complaints16 alleged the with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of their comfort,
following: as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their
relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal
"27. The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga constantly with each other, they must treat one another with
knowingly and deliberately refused and failed to perform his trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should
duty enjoined by the law and the Constitution to afford plaintiff not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward
Chia Hsien Pan due process by violating his rights under the each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and
Rules on preliminary investigations; he also falsely made a offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the
Certification under oath that preliminary investigation was duly dignity of the legal profession,19 but also constitute highly
conducted and plaintiff [was] duly informed of the charges unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
against him but did not answer; he maliciously and x x x
partially ruled that there was probable cause and filed a Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to
Criminal Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan, "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same."
and null and void; x x x;
Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in
"28. Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff Chia impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. Such excuse
Hsien Pan filed said appeal and motion to defer for the valid is flimsy and unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire devotion
to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit Footnotes
violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.20 Their
rendition of improper service invites stern and just 1 Dated October 5, 1999; rollo, pp. 1-25.
condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of 2 Notice of Resolution; rollo, p. 231.
their profession and the best interests of their clients when 3 Also referred to as Zongoi Xu.

they render service or give advice that meets the strictest 4 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-171609; rollo, p. 44.

principles of moral law.21 5 Presided by Judge Juan C. Nabong Jr.

6 Rollo, p. 122.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the 7 Id., pp. 124-126.

esteem of their professional brethren. This esteem cannot be 8 Id., pp. 52-68.

purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or 9 Id., pp. 140-141.

contrivance. It is born of sharp contests and thrives despite 10 Notice of Appeal with Attached Appeal
conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity, Memorandum/Motion for Reinvestigation with Petition for
character, brains and skill in the honorable performance of Suspension of Preliminary Investigation (rollo, p. 108) and
professional duty.22 Appeal Memorandum/Motion for Reinvestigation with Petition
for Suspension of Preliminary Investigation (rollo, pp. 109-115).
11 Rollo, pp. 120-121.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is
hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice of law,
12
See Resolution dated March 22, 2000; rollo, p. 205.
13 See Notice of Resolution; id., p. 231.
effective immediately.
14 Dated October 10, 2001, IBP.

15 Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 725, 729, August 31, 1964.


SO ORDERED.
16 Rollo, pp. 72-81.
17 Id., pp. 79-80.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares- 18 Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo, 146 Phil. 726, 731, November 26,
Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales,
1970.
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur. 19 Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293, 295, August 14, 1936; Narido v.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
Linsangan, 157 Phil. 87, 91, July 25, 1974.
20 Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

21 Canon 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

22 Agpalo, Legal Ethics (1989 ed.), p. 95.


Adm. Case No. 6298 May 27, 2004 In his Answer, respondent states that there was no failure and
(CBD Case No. 03-1071) refusal to heed the request, and the reason of inability to bring
for verification the said Notarial Book CXV, Series of 2002 is the
FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainant, fact of lost (sic) thereof attributable to heavy flooding from July 6
vs. to 20, 2002.
ATTY. EDDIE R. BANSIL, respondent.
The letter-request was lately shown to him by a member of his
RESOLUTION household, however, complainant did not mention any particular
document or he could have readily extended the desired help for
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: verification or certification. Respondent contends that he is ready
and willing to be of help to complainant if shown the particular
document necessitating verification and/or certification.
On March 17, 2003, Atty. Federico D. Ricafort filed with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), a verified complaint
against respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil for misconduct and for Complainant claims that how can respondent help verify the
violation of the Constitution on the right of the people to genuineness or veracity of the documents notarized by him, if
information on matters of public concern and R.A. No. 6713, respondent alleged that the same were lost in a flood.
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Complainant avers that the certification issued as to the
for Public Officials and Employees. The case, docketed as CBD existence of flood in Guagua, Pampanga in 6 to 20 July 2002
Case No. 03-1071, was referred by the Commission on Bar deals only with the flood in the town proper and did not say that
Discipline to Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva- the house of respondent in San Antonio, Guagua, was hit by the
Maala for investigation, report and recommendation. flood. The streets were flooded but not the house of respondent
which is situated on a higher ground. The town of Guagua,
Pampanga has been perennially flooded during rainy season for
The factual and procedural antecedents are summarized by the
which reason respondent who had to bring his notarial books at
Investigating Commissioner as follows:
his house in San Antonio, Guagua, could have guarded the same
against such contingency. A Notary Public should always place
Complainant alleged that respondent has been commissioned as his books and documents in a safe place at his residence,
a Notary Public for Guagua, Pampanga, with the obligation to otherwise this could aggravate the suspicion that he was grossly
submit his notarial book and documents every month and each negligent in keeping his books which are public documents and
time he applies for a re-commission to the Clerk of Court of the destruction of public documents is punishable by law.
Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga.
At the hearing held on 4 June 2003 only complainant appeared.
According to the RTC Clerk of Court of Guagua, Atty. Jorge Respondent’s notice for the reason of his absence was belatedly
Bacani (‘Atty. Bacani’), respondent submitted his notarial book received by the office. Parties were directed to submit their
and documents but the same were returned to him for Position Paper and thereafter the case was submitted for report
safekeeping considering that there was no space in the Office of and recommendation.
the Clerk of Court to accommodate the notarial books and
documents. However, they are required to bring them to the
In her Report and Recommendation submitted to the IBP Board
Clerk of Court when needed for inspection/verification of
of Governors, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala found the
documents upon request.
respondent administratively liable for his failure to attend to
the request of complainant to look into his notarial book and
Complainant has requested the Clerk of Court, Atty. Bacani, to recommended that respondent be suspended from the
send word to respondent that he wanted to verify some practice of law for a period of one year.
documents purportedly notarized by respondent particularly the
documents contained in Notarial Book No XV, Series of 2002
In its resolution dated October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of
and to bring the same to the Office of the Clerk of Court. The
Governors adopted the findings of Commissioner Villanueva-
request was made to respondent on several occasions, the last of
Maala but reduced the recommended penalty to a mere
which was on 20 May 2003. Atty. Bacani repeatedly called up
reprimand; and referred the same to this Court.
respondent regarding the request of complainant but respondent
repeatedly failed and refused to heed the request.
Except for the penalty recommended, the Court agrees with the
findings of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should
On 20 February 2003, complainant sent a formal letter
be held administratively liable for not attending to
reiterating his request to examine respondent’s Notarial Book
complainant’s request to look into his notarial book.
XV, Series of 2002 for verification purposes at the office of the
clerk of court on 28 February 2003. However, despite the fact
that respondent received the said letter on 3 March 2003, Before delving into the main issue of the case, we deem it
respondent still failed and refused the request without any proper to discuss two preliminary matters.
justifiable reason and did not even responded (sic) to the said
letter. Hence, this complaint.
First, it is noted that at the hearing scheduled on June 4, 2003, Respondent likewise admitted in his Answer that he received
only the complainant appeared.1 As a matter of procedure, the complainant’s letter-request dated February 20, 2003. However,
Investigating Commissioner should have proceeded with the he claims that said letter-request was belatedly shown to him
investigation ex parte pursuant to the provisions of Section 8, by a member of his household. We find this a lame excuse.
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.2 The Investigating Granting that complainant’s letter-request was belatedly shown
Commissioner should have required the complainant to to respondent, elementary rules of courtesy still dictate that
present evidence to substantiate his allegations. However, respondent should have, at the least, responded to
instead of proceeding with the hearing, the Investigating complainant’s request to look at his notarial book. This is
Commissioner issued an order requiring both parties to submit expected from respondent especially when the one requesting
their respective memoranda within 15 days from the date of is a colleague in the same profession. Moreover, respondent
issuance of the order, with respect to the complainant, and admitted that Clerk of Court Bacani had earlier notified him of
within 15 days from notice with respect to respondent. Despite the request of complainant. Respondent simply ignored the
due receipt of the said order on June 18, 2003, respondent requests of both complainant and Clerk of Court Bacani.
failed to submit the required memorandum. The Investigating
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation was dated Even if the subject notarial book was, as claimed by him,
September 16, 2003 while the resolution of the IBP Board of indeed lost by reason of flooding in his place of residence,
Governors adopting and approving said Report and although there is no evidence to prove this belated self-serving
Recommendation was passed on October 25, 2003. The records assertion, respondent could have easily written a letter or
of the case do not show that from June 18, 2003 until October called up Clerk of Court Bacani to inform him of such loss so
25, 2003, respondent had taken any action or that he that the complainant may be informed thereof in due time.
submitted the required memorandum. Consequently, he is
deemed to have waived not only his right to file said Respondent further contends that he could have easily helped
memorandum but also the right to a hearing. complainant had the latter personally gone to see him and
showed him the particular document that needed to be
Second, the complaint against respondent is in connection with verified. Respondent’s contention and inaction smacks of
the discharge of his functions as a notary public, and not as an arrogance and dereliction of his duty to bring the notarial
elected barangay chairman. Thus, the Code of Conduct and books and documents to the Clerk of Court upon request of
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees invoked by the latter. Worse, it speaks of his failure to live up to the
complainant will not apply to the present administrative exacting standards of conduct demanded from each and every
complaint against respondent. Respondent, as a lawyer and a member of the legal profession as mandated by the Code of
notary public, is covered by the Code of Professional Professional Responsibility and the Code of Professional Ethics.
Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
Coming to the main issue in the instant case, despite absence that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
of reception of evidence, as required by Sec. 8, Rule 139-B, candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid
Rules of Court, we find the following admissions made by the harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Canon 22 of the
respondent in his Answer to the complaint, to wit: Canons of Professional Ethics provides that the conduct of a
lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be
(1) He has been commissioned as a Notary Public for Guagua, characterized by candor and fairness. Indeed, the obligations of
Pampanga with obligation to submit his notarial book and a member of the bar include the observance of honorable,
documents every month and each time he applies for a candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers, fidelity to
commission to the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of known and recognized customs and practices of the
Guagua, Pampanga;3 profession, and performance of duties to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.6
(2) His notarial books covering 2001-2002 were presented
before the Clerk of Court for the renewal of his notarial Thus, respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct.
commission for the succeeding year but was returned to him Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the
after verification because of limited working space in the office rules or ethical code of his profession or which is unbecoming
of the Clerk of Court which is shared by Branch 53, RTC, a member of that profession.7
Guagua, Pampanga;4
Under the circumstances, a mere reprimand is not sufficient.
(3) He was notified by Clerk of Court Bacani regarding the We deem it proper to impose on respondent a fine in the
request of complainant to examine some notarized documents amount of ₱5,000.00 not only for his unprofessional conduct
in his notarial book;5 but also because his unjustified failure to heed complainant’s
request or to inform complainant or the Clerk of Court that the
sufficient to hold him liable for violating the Code of subject notarial books were lost in the flood, forced the latter
Professional Responsibility. to go to the extent of filing the instant administrative case
thereby wasting the time and resources not only of the
complainant and the IBP, but also of the Court.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Eddie R. Footnotes
Bansil GUILTY OF UNPROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos * On official leave.
(₱5,000.00), with a warning that a commission of the same or ** Acting Chairman.
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. 1 Respondent filed by registered mail an Urgent Ex-Parte

Motion for Postponement on June 2, 2003, which was received


Once again, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is by the IBP only on June 16, 2003.
admonished to see to it that Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules 2 Sec. 8. Investigation. – Upon joinder of issues or upon failure

of Court is observed by its Investigating Commissioners. of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with
deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He
SO ORDERED. shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths.
The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
Puno*, Quisumbing**, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur. himself, to present witness on his behalf, and be heard by
himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte. (Emphasis supplied)
3 Paragraph 2, Answer, p. 8, Rollo.

4
Id., Annex "1", p. 11, Rollo.
5 Paragraph 3, Answer, p. 5, Rollo.

6 Legal Ethics, Agpalo, Fourth Edition, 1989, p. 92.

7 Tan Tek Beng vs. David, 126 SCRA 389, 393 (1983).
A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000 objectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member
Student Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened, and
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, after a series of hearings, it found the students guilty of the use
vs. of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student
ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. publication funds. The body recommended the penalty of
BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN expulsion against the erring students.
P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES, respondents. The denial of the appeal made by the students to Dr. Amable R.
Aguiluz V, AMACC President, gave rise to the commencement
VITUG, J.: of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City. While the civil
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-Admission
of Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz: Agreements were separately executed by and/or in behalf of
some of the expelled students, to wit: Letter of Apology, dated
27 May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by his mother, and
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject
Re-Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with the AMACC
of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less
President; letter of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs.
should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with
Veronica B. De Leon for her daughter Melyda B. De Leon and
him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon
Re-Admission Agreement of 09 May 1997 with the AMACC
the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend
President; letter of apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven,
to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not
assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22
undertake to advise him as to law.
May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter or apology, dated
22 September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re-Admission
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers Agreement of 10 October 1997 with the AMACC President; and
comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, letter of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito,
Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23
Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos. January 1997 with the AMACC President.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from
the AMA Computer College ("AMACC"), in an action for the
Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for
Admission Agreements, a Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997,
Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional
was filed with the trial court where the civil case was pending
Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that
by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the Pangulayan and
respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and
Associates Law Offices for defendant AMACC. A copy of the
effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge,
manifestation was furnished complainant. In his Resolution,
compromise agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with
dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional
four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case which, in
Trial Court thereupon dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might
have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
against it. Complainant averred that such an act of respondents of the Philippines ("IBP") passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163,
was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession thus:
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law. RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that not Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
one of his co-respondents had taken part in the negotiation, made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding
discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re- the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
Admission Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no and the applicable laws and rules, with an amendment Atty.
longer connected at the time with the Pangulayan and Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of law for
Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements, he SIX (6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of
claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q- the case against the other Respondents for they did not take part
97-30549 and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting in the negotiation of the case.
the settlement of an administrative case involving nine
students of AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and
recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The Re-Admission Agreements were formalized, complainant was
students, namely, Ian Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in
Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon, Melyda B. De Leon, the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of
Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A. Santiago, Michael Ejercito, and Cleo this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by
B. Villareiz, were all members of the Editorial Board of counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to
DATALINE, who apparently had caused to be published some negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant,
who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This
failure of respondent, whether by design or because of
oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a
colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of
him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission


Agreements centers only on the administrative aspect of the
controversy is belied by the Manifestation1 which, among other
things, explicitly contained the following stipulation; viz:

1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint,


four (4) of whom assisted by their parents/guardian
already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with
AMACC President, AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V
acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA
COMPUTER COLLEGE MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all
civil, criminal and administrative proceedings which
they may have against the AMACC arising from their
previous dismissal.

xxx xxx xxx

3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent


Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No. Q-97-30549
will by filed them.1âwphi1

The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating
Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their findings;
nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would
appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty given the
circumstances and the explanation of respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is


ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt of
this decision. The case against the other respondents is
DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of


respondent as an attorney and as a member of the Bar, and
furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 21.
January 9, 1973 purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the
Supreme Court.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES. SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

RESOLUTION The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the


constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all necessary
PER CURIAM: factual data bearing on the advisability (practicability and
necessity) of Bar integration. Also embodied therein are the
On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar views, opinions, sentiments, comments and observations of the
Integration1 submitted its Report dated November 30, 1972, rank and file of the Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar
with the "earnest recommendation" — on the basis of the integration, as well as a proposed integration Court Rule
said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that
5262 of the Court, and "consistently with the views and counsel body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis
received from its [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as as well as ample material upon which the Court may decide
well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the whether or not to integrate the Philippine Bar at this time.
Philippine Bench and Bar" — that "this Honorable Court ordain
the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through The following are the pertinent issues:
the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule."
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine
The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to Bar?
order the integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, (2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing (3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this
provincial and other local Bar associations. On August 16, 1962, time?
arguments in favor of as well as in opposition to the petition
were orally expounded before the Court. Written oppositions A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement
were admitted,3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave to of the meaning of Bar integration. It will suffice, for this
file written memoranda.4 purpose, to adopt the concept given by the Commission on Bar
Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report, thus:
Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed
significant developments relative to the matter of the Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification
integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction. of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This
requires membership and financial support (in reasonable
In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
grown a strong nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
integration, the Court created the Commission on Bar Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of
unifying the Philippine Bar. The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose
names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or
In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine
Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." The measure was Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an
signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 17, entity with power to do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore,
1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep. Act 6397. This signifies the setting up by Government authority of a national
law provides as follows: organization of the legal profession based on the recognition
of the lawyer as an officer of the court.
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the
Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an
integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it instrumentality of justice and the Rule of Law, integration
shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through their
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable own organized action and participation, the promotion of the
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle of
maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby regulation by the Supreme Court.
appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act. The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the same
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals (10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal
of integrity, learning, professional competence, public service education for practising attorneys in order to elevate the
and conduct; standards of the profession throughout the country;

(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members; (11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum
fees schedules;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and
brotherhood; (12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal
research;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law
reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of (13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal
the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information rights and obligations, on the importance of preventive legal
relating thereto; advice, and on the functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer;
and
(6) Encourage and foster legal education;
(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in wide involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of
substantive and adjective law, and make reports and the multifarious problems that afflict the nation.
recommendations thereon; and
Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may
(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under
effectively. Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it the admission to the practice of law." Indeed, the power to
possible for the legal profession to: integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional
authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court
may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of
Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power
Law;
nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a mere
legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the
judges and prosecuting officers; standards of the legal profession, improve the administration
of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the responsibility more effectively."
disciplining and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy
judges and prosecuting officers; Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the
Bar would be constitutional — hinges on the effects of Bar
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself integration on the lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of
except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and association and freedom of speech, and on the nature of the
self-interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity, dues exacted from him.
impartiality and independence;
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and discussion made by the Commission on Bar Integration pages
prosecuting officers; 44 to 49 of its Report:

(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any Constitutionality of Bar Integration
monopoly of local practice maintained through influence or
position; Judicial Pronouncements.

(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has
deceased lawyers; been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their
constitutionality.
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices
and set up lawyer reference services throughout the country so The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
that the poor may not lack competent legal service;
— Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are practice of law.
difficult to obtain in many of our provinces;
— The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a profession has long been regarded as a proper subject of
privilege, moreover, clothed with public interest, because a legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the inherent
lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the
brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and authority to integrate the Bar.
takes part in one of the most important functions of the State,
the administration of justice, as an officer of the court. 2. Regulatory Fee.

— Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members
interest, it is far and just that the exercise of that privilege be does not mean that the Court levies a tax.
regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities. A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for
regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court
— These public responsibilities can best be discharged through has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an
collective action; but there can be no collective action without incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that
an organized body; no organized body can operate effectively purpose. It would not be possible to push through an
without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all Integrated Bar program without means to defray the
attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a
rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar
Integrated Bar. is that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional
burden. The public interest promoted by the integration of the
1. Freedom of Association. Bar far outweighs the inconsequential inconvenience to a
member that might result from his required payment of annual
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not dues.
violative of his constitutional freedom to associate (or the
corollary right not to associate). 3. Freedom of Speech.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on
which he is not already a member. He became a member of the any subject in any manner he wishes, even though such views
Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration be opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar.
actually does is to provide an official national organization for
the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote
which every lawyer is already a member. measures to which said member is opposed, would not nullify
or adversely affect his freedom of speech.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections practice law upon membership in the Integrated Bar, it is
as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is difficult to understand why it should become unconstitutional
the payment of annual dues. for the Bar to use the member's dues to fulfill the very
purposes for which it was established.
Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes only
the duty to pay dues in reasonable amount. The issue The objection would make every Governmental exaction the
therefore, is a question of compelled financial support of group material of a "free speech" issue. Even the income tax would be
activities, not involuntary membership in any other aspect. suspect. The objection would carry us to lengths that have
never been dreamed of. The conscientious objector, if his
The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse to contribute
elevating the educational and ethical standards of the Bar to taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by
the end of improving the quality of the legal service available his conscience as irreligious or immoral. The right of private
to the people. The Supreme Court, in order to further the judgment has never yet been exalted above the powers and
State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of the compulsion of the agencies of Government.
professional services, may require that the cost of improving
the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and 4. Fair to All Lawyers.
beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising


Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a because although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new
member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system
an exercise of the police power of the State. The legal which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore expressed opposed position thereto. Finally, of the 13,802
enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the
effective manner than they have been able to do in the past. proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission,
Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of 12,855 (or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or 4.80
regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply equally to per cent) vote against it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-
all lawyers, young and old, at the time Bar integration takes committal.5 All these clearly indicate an overwhelming
effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange for new nationwide demand for Bar integration at this time.
benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing
To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm. Case
ordain the integration of the Bar at this time — requires a No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual
careful overview of the practicability and necessity as well as data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on
the advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration. Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is
"perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within
In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has
United States, Bar integration has yielded the following become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal
benefits: (1) improved discipline among the members of the profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
Bar; (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and
and more meaningful participation of the individual lawyer in effectively.
the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and
services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by
of costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, hereby ordains the
official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and (9) integration of the Bar of the Philippines in accordance with the
better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its attached COURT RULE, effective on January 16, 1973.
obligations and responsibilities to its members, to the courts,
and to the public. No less than these salutary consequences are Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castillo, Fernando,
envisioned and in fact expected from the unification of the Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Philippine Bar.
Footnotes
Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the
event of integration, Government authority will dominate the 1 Created by Supreme Court Resolution of October 5, 1970 "for
Bar; local Bar associations will be weakened; cliquism will be the the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of the integration
inevitable result; effective lobbying will not be possible; the Bar of the Bar in this jurisdiction," the Commission is composed of
will become an impersonal Bar; and politics will intrude into its Supreme Court Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro (Chairman),
affairs. Senator Jose J. Roy, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice
Conrado V. Sanchez, Supreme Court Associate Justice (then
It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied Court of Appeals Presiding Justice) Salvador V. Esguerra, U. P.
by opponents of Bar integration have failed to materialize in Law Center Director Crisolito Pascual, Ex-Senator Tecla San
over fifty years of Bar integration experience in England, Andres Ziga, and San Beda Law Dean and Constitutional
Canada and the United States. In all the jurisdictions where the Convention Delegate Feliciano Jover Ledesma (Members).
Integrated Bar has been tried, none of the abuses or evils 2 Filed on July 11, 1962 (by a Committee composed of Jose W.
feared has arisen; on the other hand, it has restored public Diokno, Roman Ozaeta, Jose P. Carag, Eugenio Villanueva, Jr.
confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, and Leo A. Panuncialman), the petition represented the
energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly unanimous consensus of 53 Bar Associations (from all over the
improved the administration of justice. Philippines) reached in convention at the Far Eastern University
Auditorium in Manila on June 23, 1962.
How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? 3 Written oppositions were submitted by Attys. Cesar Fajardo
The official statistics compiled by the Commission on Bar and Vicente L. Arcega, the Camarines Norte Lawyers League,
integration show that in the national poll recently conducted by Atty. Fructuoso S. Villarin, the Camarines Sur Bar Association
the Commission in the matter of the integration of the and the Manila Bar Association.
Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers from all over the 4 The Petitioners and the Negros Occidental Bar Association
archipelago who have turned in their individual responses, submitted memoranda in favor of Bar integration, while the
14,555 (or 96.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, Manila Bar Association submitted a memoranda opposing Bar
while only 378 (or 2.51 per cent) voted against it, and 157 (or integration.
1.04 per cent) are non-commital. In addition, a total of eighty 5 All figures are as of January 8, 1973.
(80) local Bar association and lawyers' groups all over the
Philippines have submitted resolutions and other expressions
of unqualified endorsement and/or support for Bar integration,
while not a single local Bar association or lawyers' group has
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to
the Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent member's
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24,
Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. Article Ill of the IBP By-Laws (supra), whereas the authority of
MDD-1) the Court to issue the order applied for is found in Section 10
of the Court Rule, which reads:
RESOLUTION
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the
CASTRO, C.J.: provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing
for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
attorney in the Philippines.
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines


The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in the
(IBP for short) Board of Governors unanimously adopted
IBP is stated in these words of the Court Rule:
Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the
Matter of the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A.
Edillon) recommending to the Court the removal of the name SECTION 1. Organization. — There is hereby organized an
of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn official national body to be known as the 'Integrated Bar of the
refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the Philippines,' composed of all persons whose names now
latter's constitution notwithstanding due notice. appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of
the Supreme Court.

On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Liliano
B. Neri, submitted the said resolution to the Court for The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the
consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section following words of the Court Rule:
24, Article III of the By-Laws of the IBP, which reads:
SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar
.... Should the delinquency further continue until the following shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
June 29, the Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. ...
causes of the continued delinquency and take whatever action
it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above
Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent member's provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in
name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to
shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
Secretary of the Chapter concerned. member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and
that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of
On January 27, 1976, the Court required the respondent to the said organization to which he is admittedly personally
comment on the resolution and letter adverted to above; he antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and
submitted his comment on February 23, 1976, reiterating his property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the
refusal to pay the membership fees due from him. respondent concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule
and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and
effect.
On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President and the
IBP Board of Governors to reply to Edillon's comment: on
March 24, 1976, they submitted a joint reply. The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court
to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that
the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable by the
Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After
Court but is rather of an "administrative nature pertaining to an
the hearing, the parties were required to submit memoranda in
administrative body."
amplification of their oral arguments. The matter was
thenceforth submitted for resolution.
The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court
relating to constitutional issues that inevitably and inextricably
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's
come up to the surface whenever attempts are made to
pleadings would show that the propriety and necessity of the
regulate the practice of law, define the conditions of such
integration of the Bar of the Philippines are in essence
practice, or revoke the license granted for the exercise of the
conceded. The respondent, however, objects to particular
legal profession.
features of Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter referred to as the
Court Rule) 1 — in accordance with which the Bar of the
Philippines was integrated — and to the provisions of par. 2, The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised
Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws (hereinabove cited). in a previous case before the Court, entitled "Administrative
Case No. 526, In the Matter of the Petition for the Integration When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No.
of the Bar of the Philippines, Roman Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." 6397 5 authorizing the Supreme Court to "adopt rules of court
The Court exhaustively considered all these matters in that case to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such
in its Resolution ordaining the integration of the Bar of the conditions as it shall see fit," it did so in the exercise of the
Philippines, promulgated on January 9, 1973. The Court there paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal is to
made the unanimous pronouncement that it was "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its
... fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of public responsibility more effectively." Hence, the Congress in
all the arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the enacting such Act, the Court in ordaining the integration of the
authoritative materials and the mass of factual data contained Bar through its Resolution promulgated on January 9, 1973,
in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, and the President of the Philippines in decreeing the
that the integration of the Philippine Bar is 'perfectly constitution of the IBP into a body corporate through
constitutional and legally unobjectionable'. ... Presidential Decree No. 181 dated May 4, 1973, were prompted
by fundamental considerations of public welfare and motivated
Be that as it may, we now restate briefly the posture of the by a desire to meet the demands of pressing public necessity.
Court.
The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every interfere with and regulate personal liberty, property and
lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar associations occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to
organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in restraints and burdens in order to secure the general prosperity
which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a process and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil 218), for,
by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est supreme lex." The
to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well public welfare is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle
as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized of government the rights of individuals are subordinated.
by or under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty
official national body of which all lawyers are required to be should not be made to prevail over authority because then
members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed society win fall into anarchy (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726).
for the governance of the Bar, including the requirement of It is an undoubted power of the State to restrain some
payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge individuals from all freedom, and all individuals from some
of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of freedom.
professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of
which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar But the most compelling argument sustaining the
and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for constitutionality and validity of Bar integration in the
discipline or disbarment of the offending member. 2 Philippines is the explicit unequivocal grant of precise power to
the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of the 1973
The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
overriding considerations of public interest and public welfare
to such an extent as more than constitutionally and legally Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
justifies the restrictions that integration imposes upon the
personal interests and personal convenience of individual xxx xxx xxx
lawyers. 3
(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and pro.
Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all legislation procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law
directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and and the integration of the Bar ...,
universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power
over an important profession. The practice of law is not a and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:
vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with
public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the
only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to Supreme Court may adopt rules of Court to effect the
the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it
important functions of the State — the administration of justice shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal
— as an officer of the court. 4 The practice of law being clothed profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
with public interest, the holder of this privilege must submit to the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
a degree of control for the common good, to the extent of the
interest he has created. As the U. S. Supreme Court through Mr.
Quite apart from the above, let it be stated that even without
Justice Roberts explained, the expression "affected with a
the enabling Act (Republic Act No. 6397), and looking solely to
public interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of
the language of the provision of the Constitution granting the
the police power" (Nebbia vs. New York, 291 U.S. 502).
Supreme Court the power "to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power and
admission to the practice of law," it at once becomes duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the
indubitable that this constitutional declaration vests the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article
Supreme Court with plenary power in all cases regarding the X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) — which power the
admission to and supervision of the practice of law. respondent acknowledges — from requiring members of a
privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee
Thus, when the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession
profession, his practice of law and his exercise of the said to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed
profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for
subject to the power of the body politic to require him to carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration. 11
conform to such regulations as might be established by the
proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent of 3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of the
interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of property
submit himself to such reasonable interference and regulation, without due process and hence infringes on one of his
he should not have clothed the public with an interest in his constitutional rights. Whether the practice of law is a property
concerns. right, in the sense of its being one that entitles the holder of a
license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to
On this score alone, the case for the respondent must already consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the
fall. State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to
perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to practise law
The issues being of constitutional dimension, however, we now before the courts of this country should be and is a matter
concisely deal with them seriatim. subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose
the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty
designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or
is without power to compel him to become a member of the
arbitrary. 12
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court
Rule is unconstitutional for it impinges on his constitutional
right of freedom to associate (and not to associate). Our But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a
answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the property right but a mere privilege, 13 and as such must bow to
Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance
associate. 6 with the lawyer's public responsibilities.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of 4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the
which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of
Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. 7 All that integration Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission,
actually does is to provide an official national organization for suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their
the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably
which every lawyer is a ready a member. 8 recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities,
and the authorities holding such are legion. 14

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with


anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections report of the Board of Bar Commissioners in a disbarment
as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is proceeding was confirmed and disbarment ordered, the court,
the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to sustaining the Bar Integration Act of Kentucky, said: "The power
further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its officers does
professional legal services, may require that the cost of not depend upon constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the power which is inherent in this court as a court — appropriate,
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the indeed necessary, to the proper administration of justice ... the
lawyers.9 argument that this is an arbitrary power which the court is
arrogating to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise
misconceives the nature of the duty. It has limitations no less
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense
real because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task to sit in
compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such
judgment upon a brother member of the Bar, particularly
compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the
where, as here, the facts are disputed. It is a grave
State. 10
responsibility, to be assumed only with a determination to
uphold the Ideals and traditions of an honorable profession
2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the and to protect the public from overreaching and fraud. The
provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will
membership fee is void. We see nothing in the Constitution not be misused or prostituted. ..."
The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 6 In re Unification of New Hampsire Bar, 248 A. 2d 709; In re
Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court the power Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550, 4P. 2d 643; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10
to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice ... and the Wis. 2d 230, 102 N. W. 2d 404; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 367 U.S.
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar 820, 6 L. ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826; Railways Employes' Dept.
... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the fitness of the vs. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 100 L. ed. 1112, 76 S. Ct. 714.
respondent to remain a member of the legal profession is
indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court. 7 Diokno, Jose W., "Bar Integration — A Sword and a Shield for
Justice" (Manor Press, Q.C., 1962) p. 17.
We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of
Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the 8 Fellers James, "Integration of the Bar — Aloha!", Journal of
Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional nor the Am. Judicature Society, Vol. 47, No. 11 (1964) p. 256. 9
illegal. Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d 230, 102, N.W. 2d 404; Lathrop
vs. Donahue, 367 U.S. 820, 6 L, ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of
the Court that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as 9. Lathrop vs. Donohue, 10 Wis., 2d 230, 102, N.W. 2d 404;
he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken Lathrop vs. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 6L. ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct.
from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court. 1826.

Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz 10 Hill vs. State Bar of California, 97 P. 2d 236; Herron vs. State
Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, Bar of California, 24 Cal. 53, 147 P. 2d 543; Carpenter vs. State
JJ., concur. Bar of California, 211 Cal. 358, 295 P. 23; In re Mundy, 202 La.
41, 11 SO. 2d 398; In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291; In re Platz,
Footnotes 60 Nev. 24, 108 P. 2d 858, In re Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550, 4 P. 2d
643; Kelley vs. State Bar of Oklahoma, 148 Okla, 282, 298 P.
1 Adopted in the Supreme Court's Resolution, promulgated on 623.
January 9, 1973, ordaining the integration of the Bar of the
Philippines. 11 Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 40 So. 2d 902; In re
Integration of Bar of Hawaii, 432 P. 2d 887; Petition for
2 114 A.L.R. 101. Integration of Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195, 12 N. W. 2d
515; In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291; In re Unification of New
3 Memorandum of Authorities on the Constitutionality of Bar Hampshire Bar, 248 A. 2d 709; In re Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550, 4 P.
Integration, cited in the Report of the Commission Bar 2d 643; State Bar of Oklahoma vs. McGhnee 148 Okla, 219, 298
Integration on the Integration of the Philippine Bar, Nov. 30, P. 580; Kelley vs. State Bar of Oklahoma, 148 Okla, 282, 298 P.
1972; see also Supreme Court Resolution of January 9, 1973, 623; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d 230,102 N. W. 2d 404.
ordaining the integration of the Philippine Bar.
12 In re Gibson, 4 P. 2d 643.
4 In re Integrating the Bar, 222 Ark 35, 259 S. W. 2d 114;
Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 40 So. 2d 902; Petition The following words of Justice Harlan are opposite: "The
of Florida State Bar Association, 134 Fla. 851, 186 So. 280: In re objection would make every Governmental exaction the
Edwards, 45 Idaho 676, 266 P. 665; Commonwealth ex rel. Ward material of a 'free speech' issue. Even the income tax would be
vs. Harrington, 266 Ky. 41 98 S. W. 2d 53; Ayres vs. Hadaway suspect. The objection would carry us to lengths that have
303 Mich. 589, 6 N. W. 2d 905; Petition for Integration of Bar of never been dreamed of. The conscientious objector, if his
Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195; Petition for Integration of Bar of liberties were to thus extended, might refuse to contribute
Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195, 12 N. W. 2d 515; Clark vs. Austin, taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by
101 S. W. 2d 977; In Re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Assn., his conscience as irreligious or immoral The right of private
133 Neb. 283, 275 N. W. 265, 114 A.L.R. 151; In re Scott, 53 Nev. judgment has never yet been exalted above the powers and
24, 292 291; Baker vs. Varser, 240 N.C. 260, 82 S.E. 2d 90; In re the compulsion of the agencies of Government." (Concurring
Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma, 185 Okla, 505, 95 P. 2d opinion of Harlan, J, joined by Frankfurter, J., in Lathrop vs.
113; State ex rel. Rice vs. Cozad, 70 S. Dak. 193, 16 N. W. 2d Donahue, 367
484; Campbell vs. Third District Committee of Virginia State Bar,
179 Va. 244, 18 S. E. 2d 883; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d U.S. 820, 6 L.ed. 21191, 81 S. Ct. 1826, citing Cardozo, J. with
230,102 N. W. 2d 404. Branders and Stone, JJ., concurring, in Hamilton vs. Regents of
Univ. of California, 293 U.S. 245, 79 L.ed. 343, 55 S. Ct. 197.)
5 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE
PHILIPPINE BAR AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, 13 Inre Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291.
approved on September 17,1971.
14 Bar Flunkers Case, 50 O.G. 1602; In re Aguas, 1 Phil. 1, and
others.
A.M. No. 491 October 6, 1989 The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of
office on July 4,1989, before the Supreme Court en banc.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 However,disturbed by the widespread reports received by
ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed
or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments
published in the columns of some newspapers about the
intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates,
led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the
PER CURIAM:
association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce,
and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes,
In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of and the officious intervention of certain public officials to
the Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3, 1989 at the influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the
Philippine International Convention Center (or PICC), the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities. The Supreme
following were elected by the House of Delegates (composed Court en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the
of 120 chapter presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP
officers: officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.

NAME POSITION It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself
(i.e. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989)
Atty. Violeta Drilon President which was conducted by the "IBP Comelec," headed by Justice
Reynato Puno of the Court of Appeals, was unanimously
Atty. Bella Tiro Executive Vice-President adjudged by the participants and observers to be above board.
For Justice Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to
Atty. Salvador Lao Chairman, House of Delegates prevent tampering with, and marking of, the ballots.

Atty. Renato F. Secretary, House of Delegates


What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the
Ronquillo
reported electioneering and extravagance that characterized
Atty. Teodoro Quicoy Treasurer, House of Delegates the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president
of the IBP.
Atty. Oscar Badelles Sergeant at Arms, House of Delegates
I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
Atty. Justiniano Cortes Governor & Vice-President for Northern
Luzon Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon
Election" (Manila Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis
Atty. Ciriaco Atienza Governor & Vice-President for Central Mauricio, in two successive columns: "The Invertebrated Bar"
Luzon
(Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The Disintegrating Bar" (Malaya,
June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin Jr. in an article, entitled
Atty. Mario Jalandoni Governor & Vice-President for Metro
"Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free Press, July 8,1989), and the
Manila
editorial, entitled 'Wrong Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8,
1989), were unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and
Atty. Jose Aguilar Governor & Vice-President for Southern
Grapilon Luzon pressure tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the
three principal candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo
Atty. Teodoro Almine Governor & Vice-President for Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly "poured heart, soul,
Bicolandia money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates."

Atty. Porfirio Siyangco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals
Visayas who felt at a disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used
PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of
Atty. Ricardo Teruel Governor & Vice-President for Western distributing Bigay Puso donations, and she had the added
Visayas advantage of having regional directors and labor arbiters of the
Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted
Atty. Gladys Tiongco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern leaves of absence by her husband, the Labor Secretary)
Mindanao campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged that there
was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma
Atty. Simeon Governor & Vice-President for Western
Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity), as well as by some
Datumanong Mindanao
lawyers of ACCRA (Angara, Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and
Abello Law Office) where Mrs. Drilon is employed, and that
government positions were promised to others by the office of
the Labor Secretary.
Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, invitation of the Court, to give counsel and advice. The meeting
in addition, mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of between the Court en banc on the one hand, and the outgoing
Labor, especially conciliators and employers, notably Chinese and in coming IBP officers on the other, was an informal one.
Filipinos, giving aid and comfort to her (Atty. Drilon's) Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to
candidacy," the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush determine whether the prohibited acts and activities
hotels where they were reportedly "wined and dined enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before and
continuously, womened and subjected to endless haggling during the 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.
over the price of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from
Pl5,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the election, some The Court en banc formed a committee and designated Senior
twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as Chairman, and
to P50,000." Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Emilio A. Gancayco,
Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, as
In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top members, to conduct the inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty.
official of the judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP politics Daniel Martinez, acted as the committee's Recording Secretary.
on election day by closeting himself with campaigners as they
plotted their election strategy in a room of the PICC (the A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in
Philippine International Convention Center where the response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the
convention/election were held) during a recess x x x." conduct of the elections. The managers of three five-star hotels
the Philippine Plaza, the Hyatt, and the Holiday Inn where the
Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed three protagonists (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up
Mauricio's reports with some embellishments. their respective headquarters and where they billeted their
supporters were summoned. The officer of the Philippine
II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE. National Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to
enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential
Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to
banc resolution dated June 15, 1989, directed the outgoing and ferry them to distant places in their campaign to win the votes
incoming members of the IBP Board of Governors, the principal of delegates. The Philippine Airlines officials were called to
officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to appear testify on the charge that some candidates gave free air fares
before it on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., and to delegates to the convention. Officials of the Labor
there to inform the Court on the veracity of the Department were also called to enable the Court to ascertain
aforementioned reports and to recommend, for the the truth of the reports that labor officials openly campaigned
consideration of the Court, appropriate approaches to the or worked for the election of Atty. Drilon.
problem of confirming and strengthening adherence to the
fundamental principles of the IBP. The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus
Bigornia and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the
In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic nature of their sources of information relative to the IBP
postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily elections. Their stories were based, they said, on letters, phone
stressed at the time of its organization and commencement of calls and personal interviews with persons who claimed to have
existence, is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and knowledge of the facts, but whom they, invoking the Press
that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice Freedom Law, refused to identify.
of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving,
chapter. The fundamental assumption was that officers, and analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as
delegates and governors would be chosen on the basis of were perceived to have direct and personal knowledge of the
professional merit and willingness and ability to serve." relevant facts; and the Court, after deliberating thereon, has
Resolved to accept and adopt the same.
The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply
disturbed to note that in connection with the election of III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS.
members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly
carried by media and transmitted as well by word of mouth, non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
that there was extensive and intensive campaigning by thus:
candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of
considerable sums of money by candidates, including vote- "SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar is strictly non-
buying, direct or indirect." political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature
is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No
The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes, attended the dialogue, upon prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for At the formal investigation which was conducted by the
election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar investigating committee, the following violations were
or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or established:
employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of
any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned (1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the
from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidates for president, executive vice-president, the officers of
candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment candidate the House of Delegates and Board of Governors.
to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and
thereof. "' Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the votes
of delegates as early as April 1989. Upon the invitation of IBP
Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July 13,1989, p. 4), they
relative to IBP elections: attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April
1989 (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga,
SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. — and in Baguio City (during the conference of chapter presidents
The following acts and practices relative to election are of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113; t.s.n., July 10, p. 41;
prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where they announced their candidacies
office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or and met the chapter presidents.
indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through
another person: Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking
the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and
(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign securing their written endorsements. He personally hand-
material; carried nomination forms and requested the chapter presidents
and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formalize their
(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material commitment to his nomination for IBP President. He started
other than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March
more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing 1989 after the chapter elections which determined the
distribution of such statement to be done by persons other membership of the House of Delegates composed of the 120
than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections; chapter presidents (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He
obtained forty (40) commitments. He submitted photocopies of
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an his nomination forms which read:
elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision, agency or "Nomination Form
instrumentality thereof;
I Join in Nominating
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of
candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof; RAMON M. NISCE

(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to as


withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1)
payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) National President of the
giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any
article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made,
offered or promised to any person."
______________ _______________

Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations


Chapter Signature"
of the above rules:

Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre


(d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or
P. Tejada, Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L.
commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined
Quirico Ernesto S. Salun-at, Gloria C. Agunos, Oscar B.
in Section 14 prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections)
Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza,
of the by-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the
Jose N. Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr.,
disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if
Paulino G. Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado Democrito M.
elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon
Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel C.
any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated
Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., Emesto A.
Bar.
Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T.
Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr.,
Cesar C. Viola, Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Attorneys Drilon, Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and
Flores, Sixto Marella, Jr., Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo, Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga, Daet and
Antonio G. Nalapo Romualdo A. Din Jr., Jose P. Icaonapo Jr., Legaspi. In Legaspi the Drilon group had lunch with Atty.
and Manuel S. Person. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989,
pp. 54-69).
Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel
based on the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29, (3) Formation of tickets and single slates.
1989, pp. 82-85). Unfortunately, despite those formal
commitments, he obtained only 14 votes in the election (t.s.n., The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted
June 29, 1 989, p. 86). The reason, he said, is that. some of having formed their own slates for the election of IBP national
those who had committed their votes to him were officers on June 3, 1989.
"manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or remunerated" (t.s.n.,
June 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4, 1989, Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of — himself for President; Bella
pp. 100-1 04). D. Tiro, for Executive Vice-President; and for Governors:
Justiniano P. Cortez (Northern Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez
(2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign. (Central Luzon), Mario C.V. Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo
A. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr.
The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo (Bicolandia), Ricardo B. Teruel (Western Visayas), Porfirio P.
and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S. Siyangco (Eastern Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat (Western
Factoran, Jr. of the Department of Environment & Natural Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao) (Exhibit
Resources (DENR) borrowed a plane from the Philippine M-Nisce).
National Bank for his Bicol CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional
Development) Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for President,
plane manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo) listed Atty. Violeta Drilon, Arturo Tiu for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for
Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment and Chairman of the House of Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil
Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys Tiongco, and Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy
Amy Wong. Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers Wong (Metro Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog),
were IBP candidates. Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern
Visayas), Joelito Barrera (Western Visayas), Gladys Tiongco
Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane. (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao)
She said that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about the (Exhibit M-1-Nisce).
availability of a PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3,1989, pp. 116-118).
Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B.
Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice- Sansano Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo Renato F.
president in the Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in May Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos, Mario Valderrama, Candido P.
1989 he failed to obtain booking from the Philippine Airlines Balbin Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea,
for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He went to the Jr., Vicente P. Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T.
DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a client. While at Albacite and Oscar V. Badelles.
the DENR, he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was going
on an official business in Bicol for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran (4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and
and that he would be taking a PNB plane. As Assistant alternates.
Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he asked if he, together
with the Drilon group, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some
His request was granted. Their purpose in going to Bicol was to delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to
assess their chances in the IBP elections. The Drilon company whom he gave four round-trip tickets (worth about P10,000)
talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga, and from Iligan City to Manila and back. Badelles was a voting
Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. delegate. Nisce, however, failed to get a written commitment
549). from him because Atty. Medialdea assured him (Nisce)
"sigurado na 'yan, h'wag mo nang papirmahin." Badelles won
Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB as sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that of Drilon.
plane by Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May
23,1989, DENR Secretary Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets,
to monitor certain regional development projects there and to but he Badelles said that he did not use them, because if he
survey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the did, he would be committed to Nisce, and he Badelles did not
middle of May. On the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother want to be committed (t.s.n., July 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).
(meaning that Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to
the DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran) if he
Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his
(Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. Assistant
candidate, and another ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of Zamboanga.
Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group which included
Records of the Philippine Airlines showed that Atty. Nisce paid Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza,
for the plane tickets of Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), recalled that it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto who first came to
Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica), Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), book rooms for the IBP delegates. She suggested that he
Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. obtain a group (or discounted) rate. He gave her the name of
D-3- Calica), and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica). Atty. Callanta who would make the arrangements with her. Mr.
Benedicto turned out to be the Assistant Secretary of the
In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
candidates won: Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4, as Secretary of
the House of Delegates (t.s.n. July 3, p. 161). The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the
rooms, food, and beverages consumed by the Drilon group,
(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, with an unpaid balance of P302,197.30. Per Attorney Daniel
entertainment to delegates. Martinez's last telephone conversation with Ms. Villanueva,
Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding account of P232,782.65 at
(a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDO Philippine Plaza.

Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40
three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his rooms at the Philippine Plaza. He made a downpayment of
headquarters. The 24 rooms were to be occupied by his staff P123,000. His "working sheet' showed that the following
(mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The three suites were to persons contributed for that down payment:
be occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol Bar
Association, and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for (a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office) P 25,000
the hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn, where a room
cost P990 per day with breakfast. (b) Antonio Carpio 20,000

Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: (c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) 10,000
Emesto C. Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong,
Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus (d) Jay Castro 10,000
Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio Cribe Juanita Subia,
(e) Danny Deen 20,000
Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo
Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro
(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) 10,000
Quicoy Manito Lucero, Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, Julian
Ocampo, Francisco Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla, Amador (g) Alfonso Reyno 20,000
Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes, Jr.,
Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. (h) Cosme Rossel 15,300
Formilleza, Jr., Democrito Perez, Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon,
Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario Jalandoni, Kenneth Siruelo Bella
Tiro, Antonio Santos, Tiburcio Edano James Tan, Cesilo A. (t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)
Adaza, Francisco Roxas, Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel,
Judge Jaime Hamoy, Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay, Judge Carlito Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have
Eisma, Judge Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon. been contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a
project. This time, they contributed so that their partners or
Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified that associates could attend the legal aid seminar and the IBP
Atty. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the convention too.
presidential suite, which was used as the Secretariat. The group
bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of Nereo Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. Callanta
Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 63-68). The total sum of had billeted her delegates at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly
P227,114.89 was paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms. did not also know in whose name the room she occupied was
registered. But she did ask for a room where she could rest
(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON during the convention. She admitted, however, that she paid
for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta, through Atty.
The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at Loanzon (t.s.n. July 3,1989).
the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty.
Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites. The following were listed as having occupied the rooms
According to Ms. Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and reserved by Atty. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon,
conventions manager, the contract that Atty. Callanta signed Victoria A. Verciles, Victoria C. Loanzon, Leopoldo A. Consulto
with the Philippine Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Ador Lao, Victoria Borra, Aimee Wong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu,
Atty. Callanta." Gallardo, Acong Atienza, D. Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat,
Manuel Yuson, Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto
Marella, Joselito Barrera, Radon Macalalag, Oscar Badelles, Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio Pamintuan,
Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza, Gil Batula Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada.
Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla,
Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, (6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon
Araneta, Vicente Real, Sylvio Casuncad Espina, Guerrero, Julius
Neri, Linda Lim, Ben Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or
Macalag Mariano Benedicto, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta. against a candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-
judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government' (Sec. 14[c],
Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant Secretary,
he is a senior partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he took a
the Philippine Plaza so that some members of his law firm leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention.
could campaign for the Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989, pp. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group
7678) during the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention. admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta
Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity brothers of Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho
Secretary Drilon (meaning, members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho,
Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Secretary Benedicto explained: "More than the husband of Mrs.
Atty. Drilon and the members of her slate, two of whom Jose Drilon being my boss, the significance there is that the
Grapilon and Simeon Datumanong — are Sigma Rhoans. They husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho."
consider Atty. Drilon as a "sigma rho sister," her husband being
a sigma rhoan. He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked
to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio,
Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for Nilo Pena, Amy Wong, Atty. Grapilon, Victor Lazatin, and Boy
the members of his own firm who attended the legal aid Reyno. They assessed the progress of the campaign, and
seminar and the convention. He made the reservation through measured the strengths and weaknesses of the other groups
Atty. Callanta to whom he paid P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp. The group had sessions as early as the later part of May.
30-34).
Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary
Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during the Benedicto toted up a bill of P23,110 during the 2-day IBP
convention, by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like convention/election. A total of 113 phone calls (amounting to
Atty. Albacite his former teacher (but the latter was already Pl,356) were recorded as emanating from his room.
committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy Fortes, a classmate of his
in the U.P. College of Law (t. t.s.n. July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39). Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the
names of Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor,
(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE. Eastern Mindanao) and Amy Wong (candidate for Governor,
Metro Manila). These two rooms served as the "action center'
Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered or "war room" where campaign strategies were discussed
into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus before and during the convention. It was in these rooms where
one (1) seventh-floor room. He made a downpayment of the supporters of the Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio, Callanta,
P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on April 20, 1989, and Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot their
P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of P57,632.45. moves.

Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr. Ramon (7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec.
Jacinto, the sales department manager, credit manager, and 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
reservation manager, respectively of the Hyatt, testified that
Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has
pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-Flores, F-Jacinto G-Ocampo). heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who
promised to vote for or support them, but she has no way of
As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the
rooms for those who committed themselves to his candidacy. delinquent dues of another, because the receipts are issued in
the name of the member for whom payment is made (t.s.n.
The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).
Habanel B. Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes
Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments
Damasco, Candido Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, in March, April, May during any election year. This year, the
Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion, Q. Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, collections increased by P100,000 over that of last year (a non-
Zoilo Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, election year from Pl,413,425 to Pl,524,875 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989,
Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun, A. p. 25).
(8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the race
than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By- and refused to be nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104).
Laws). Vicente P. Tordilla who was Nisce's candidate for Governor
became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p.
On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. 104).
Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies of a
leaflet entitled "My Quest," as wen as, the lists of his slate. Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in
Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and Cotabato City, Court Administrator Tiro went around saying, "I
bio-data. am not campaigning, but my wife is a candidate." Nisce said
that the presidents of several IBP chapters informed him that
The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from P15,000 to labor officials were campaigning for Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June
P20,000. They were printed by his own printing shop. 29,1989, pp. 109-110). He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who
allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.s.n. June 29,1989,p.111)
(9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by
persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for
the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws). governor of the Western Visayas, expressed his disappointment
over the IBP elections because some delegates flip-flopped
Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his from one camp to another. He testified that when he arrived at
campaign materials on the convention floor. Atty. Carpio noted the Manila Domestic Airport he was met by an assistant
that there were more campaign materials distributed at the regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to the
convention site this year than in previous years. The election Philippine Plaza, but he declined the offer. During the legal aid
was more heated and expensive (t.s.n. July 6,1989, p. 39). seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine
Plaza where a room had been reserved for him. He declined the
invitation (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 102-106).
Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the IBP
Rizal Chapter, and a candidate for chairman of the House of
Delegates on Nisce's ticket, testified that campaign materials Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he
were distributed during the convention by girls and by lawyers. already knew that the three candidates had their headquarters
He saw members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. in separate hotels: Paculdo, at the Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the
Drilon (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 142-145). Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the Hyatt. He knew about this
because a week before the elections, representatives of Atty.
Drilon went to Dumaguete City to campaign. He mentioned
(10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or
Atty. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA Law Office, accompanied
to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
by Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the
Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he said,
Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo offered to give him two PAL tickets and accommodations at the
Capulong, urged him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman Philippine Plaza (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 101-104). But he declined
of the House of Delegates and to run as vice-chairman in Violy the offer because he was already committed to Atty. Nisce.
Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 137, 149).
Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May
Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces 31, 1989, a businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to
Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP convince him to vote for Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that
Chapter, recalled that in the third week of May 1989, after the he was already committed to Nisce.
Tripartite meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at
the Green Valley Country Club in Baguio City, she met Atty.
He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce because
Drilon, together with two labor officers of Region 1, Attys.
he and his two companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto)
Filomeno Balbin and Atty. Mansala Atty. Drilon solicited her
had earlier bought their own tickets for Manila (t.s.n. July 4,
(Atty. Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine
1989, p. 101).
Plaza where a room would be available for her. Atty. Paculdo
also tried to enlist her support during the chapter presidents'
meeting to choose their nominee for governor for the Northern SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED
Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-54).
BY THE CANDIDATES
Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial
Magsino, who had earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000 during his
his mind when he was offered a judgeship (This statement, three weeks of campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol Bar
however, is admittedly hearsay). When Nisce confronted Association (of which he was the chapter president)
Magsino about the alleged offer, the latter denied that there contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar Association is a
was such an offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Nalapo an voluntary bar association composed of Quezon City lawyers.
IBP candidate who also withdrew.
He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary
the provinces (Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the
Province and Bulacan) (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 9-14). laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes"
and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or
Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon
This does not include the expenses for his campaign which 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is
began several months before the June 3rd election, and his gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to
purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates. be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and
cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for
The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. their observance.
Drilon's camp, showed that her campaign rang up over
P600,000 in hotel bills. Atty. Callanta paid P316,411.53 for the The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the
rooms, food, and beverage consumed by Atty. Drilon's presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the
supporters, but still left an unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being
convention's end. bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not uphold the
honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.
FINDINGS.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the
From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which evasions, denials and outright prevarications that tainted the
the principal candidates for the national positions in the statements of the witnesses, including tome of the candidates,
Integrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding
elections on June 3, 1989, violated Section 14 of the IBP By- committee was created. The subsequent investigation
Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non- conducted by this Committee has revealed that those parties
political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws. had been less than candid with the Court and seem to have
conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold
vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed
The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal
during the campaign.
candidates (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The
Philippine Plaza, the Holiday Inn and The Hyatt the better for
them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein; the CONCLUSIONS.
island hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents
who comprise the 120-member House of Delegates that elects It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the
the national officers and regional governors; the formation of provision in the 1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing
tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of seven (7) members
positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo or among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked
Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to
distribution of nomination forms to be filled up by the vacant positions in the judiciary, may be the reason why the
delegates; the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among
hotels, at the expense of the presidential candidates; the use of the lawyers. The much coveted "power" erroneously perceived
a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket to to be inherent in that office might have caused the corruption
enable them to "assess their chances" among the chapter of the IBP elections. To impress upon the participants in that
presidents in the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution electoral exercise the seriousness of the misconduct which
of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by
Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the this Court, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP
employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by and reduce, if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering
Drilon) to distribute their campaign materials on the for the top positions in the organization which, as the recently
convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of concluded elections revealed, spawned unethical practices
assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and which seriously diminished the stature of the IBP as an
her group; the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the association of the practitioners of a noble and honored
airport and escort them to the Philippine Plaza Hotel; the profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:
giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to
delegates (and some families who accompanied them) in 1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are
exchange for their support; the pirating of some candidates by hereby annulled.
inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another
for some rumored consideration; all these practices made a 2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by
political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in its
election process. resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) of the
following national officers:
The candidates and many of the participants in that election
not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of
(a) the officers of the House of Delegates; Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar of
the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors
(b) the IBP president; and consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as
delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the
(c) the executive vice-president, representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be
elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that
region only. The position of Governor should be rotated
be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or
among the different Chapters in the region.
repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said
By-Laws.
9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:

3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive


Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors (composed Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least
of the governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from among one (1) month before the national convention the delegates
themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By- from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the
Laws) should be restored. The right of automatic succession by choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among
the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the the chapters in the region.
expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this
Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) 10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe
should be as it is hereby restored. following provision as part of the first paragraph:

4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general
Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of membership shall be held prior to any election in an election
president. The incoming board of governors shall then elect an year.
Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position
of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) 11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article
IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run for VI should be as they are hereby deleted.
election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election
until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by
regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation the Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter
shall begin anew. No. 287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or
modified.
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as
follows: 12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in
the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months, after the
Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the promulgation of the Court's resolution in this case. Within
Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice-President thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at
to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among
regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-
The governors shall be ex oficio Vice-President for their president. In these special elections, the candidates in the
respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and election of the national officers held on June 3,1989,
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled
President with the consent of the Board. "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those
identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the
6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and
follows: may not present themselves as candidate for any position.

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall 13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be
be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The
of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are without
shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other
House of Delegates.' measures as are warranted in the premises.

7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of SO ORDERED.


Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at-
Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla. Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ.,
8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows: concur. Fernan, C.J. and Medialdea, J., took no part. Gutierrez, Jr.,
J., is on leave.
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC December 14, 2010 2. Who was validly elected Governor for the Greater Manila
Region?
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE
ELECTION IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES 3. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Visayas
Region?
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
4. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Mindanao
A.C. No. 8292 Region?

ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA 5. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice President for the
and NASSER MAROHOMSALIC, Complainants, next term?
vs.
ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, 6. What is the liability, if any, of respondent Atty. Rogelio A.
BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON Vinluan under the administrative complaint for "grave
and RAYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, Respondents. professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath, and acts
inimical to the IBP" filed against him by Attys. Marcial Magsino,
RESOLUTION Manuel Maramba and Nasser Marohomsalic?

CORONA, C.J.: Meanwhile, a Supplemental Complaint dated June 11, 2009 was
received from Attys. Magsino, Maramba and Marohomsalic
This resolves the above matter involving the leadership regarding the earlier complaint that they filed last May 21, 2009
controversy at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and against Atty. Vinluan.
the administrative case that was filed against some of the high-
ranking officers of the IBP on account thereof. As such, then IBP President Feliciano M. Bautista and then
Executive Vice President (EVP) Vinluan agreed to submit their
I. Antecedents respective position papers on the above issues and
controversies. Also, Atty. Vinluan was required to file his answer
to the administrative complaint against him.
The Court in an En Banc Resolution dated June 2, 2009 created
a Special (Investigating) Committee1 to look into the "brewing
controversies in the IBP elections, specifically in the elections of A Position Paper dated June 15, 2009 was then received from
Vice-President for the Greater Manila Region and Executive Atty. Vinluan. Attys. Elpidio G. Soriano, III and Erwin M.
Vice-President of the IBP itself xxx and any other election Fortunato also filed their Position Papers both dated June 15,
controversy involving other chapters of the IBP, if any", that 2009. It appears that an earlier Position Paper also dated June
includes as well the election of the Governors for Western 15, 2009 was submitted by Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto.
Mindanao and Western Visayas.
For their part, Attys. Bautista, Maramba and Magsino filed their
Consequently, the Special Committee called the IBP officers Position Paper dated June 16, 2009. Incidentally, in a
involved to a preliminary conference on June 10, 2009. With Manifestation likewise dated June 16, 2009 Attys. Bautista,
respect thereto, Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan then submitted a Maramba and Marcial M. Magsino submitted the same paper
Preliminary Conference Brief on the same day. During the but already bearing the signature of Atty. Bautista.
conference it was determined that the investigation would
focus on the following issues or controversies: Atty. Nasser A. Marohomsalic submitted his Position Paper
dated June 17, 2009. The Special Committee, in the course of
1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article V of its investigation, further received a letter dated June 22, 2009
the IBP By-Laws which provides: from Atty. Alex L. Macalawi, President of the IBP Lanao del Sur
Chapter.

"SEC. 31. Membership. – The membership (of Delegates) shall


consist of all the Chapter Presidents and, in the case of As to the administrative case filed against him, Atty. Vinluan, as
Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice- respondent, filed his Comment dated June 15, 2009. In turn,
Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as Attys. Magsino, Maramba and Marohomsalic, as complainants,
the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice-President is submitted their Reply dated June 23, 2009.
already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate.
Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be The Special Committee then submitted a Report and
elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of Recommendation dated July 9, 2009 the dispositive portion of
the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be which read as follows:
members ex officio of the House, without the right to vote."
A. That to avoid further controversy regarding its proper
interpretation and implementation, Sec. 31, Article V, of the By-
Laws should be amended as follows (suggested amendments "Sec. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. – At least
are in bold print): one (1) month before the national convention the delegates
from each region shall elect the Governor for their region, who
"SEC. 31. Membership. – The membership of the House of shall be chosen by rotation which is mandatory and shall be
Delegates shall consist of all the Chapter Presidents and in the strictly implemented among the Chapters in the region. When
case of Chapters entitled to mo(r)e than on(e) Delegate each, a Chapter waives its turn in the rotation order, its place shall
the Vice President of the Chapters and such additional redound to the next Chapter in the line. Nevertheless, the
Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice former may reclaim its right to the Governorship at any time
President is already (a) delegate, he shall be an alternate before the rotation is completed; otherwise, it will have to wait
Delegate. Additional Delegates and their respective alternates for its turn in the next round, in the same place that it had in
shall be elected from, and by, the Board of Officers of the the round completed.
Chapter. If the Delegate chosen is incapacitated, or disqualified,
or resigns, or refuses to serve, and there are enough members F. That in view of the fact that the IBP no longer elects its
of the Board to be elected as Delegates, then the Board of President, because the Executive Vice President automatically
Officers shall elect the additional delegates and alternates from succeeds the President at the end of his term, Sec. 47, Article
the general membership of the Chapter, and his corresponding VII of the By-Laws should be amended by deleting the
alternate shall take his place." provision for the election of the President. Moreover, for the
strict implementation of the rotation rule, the Committee
B. That to avoid any ambiguity as to how the President shall recommends that there should be a sanction for its violation,
preside and vote in meetings of the House of Delegates, thus:
paragraph (g), Sec. 33, Article V of the By-Laws should be
amended as follows: "Sec. 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President,
"(g) In all meetings and deliberations of the House, whether in and nine (9) regional Governors. The Executive Vice President
annual or special convention, the President shall preside, or the shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of
Executive Vice President, if the President is absent or Governors from among themselves, by the vote of at least five
incapacitated, but neither of them shall vote except to break a (5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President
tie." for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors.
C. Similarly, Sec. 42, Article VI of the By-Laws, on meetings of
the Board of Governors, should be amended to read as follows: "The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be
penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of
"Sec. 42. Meetings. – The Board shall meet regularly once a the offender from election or appointment to any office in the
month, on such date and such time and place as it shall IBP."
designate. Special meetings may be called by the President,
and shall be called by him upon the written request of five (5) G. That Atty. Manuel M. Maramba should be declared the duly
members of the Board. The President shall not vote except to elected Governor of the Greater Manila Region for the 2009-
break a tie in the voting. When for any reason, the President 2011 term.
cannot preside on account of his absence, incapacity, or refusal
to call a meeting, the Executive Vice President shall preside, H. That Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter should
there being a quorum to transact business, but he may not be declared the duly elected Governor of the Western Visayas
vote except to break a tie. Region for the 2009-2011 term.

D. That Sec. 43, Article VI of the By-Laws, on the procedure for I. That a special election should be held in the Western
approving a resolution by the Board of Governors without a Mindanao Region, within fifteen (15) days from notice, to elect
meeting, should be amended by adding the following the Governor of that region for the 2009-2011 term. In
exception thereto so that the procedure may not be abused in accordance with the rotation rule, only the six (6) Chapters in
connection with any election in the IBP: the region that have not yet been elected to the Board of
Governors, namely: Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del
"This provision shall not apply when the Board shall hold an Norte, Za(m)boanga del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Misamis
election or hear and decide an election protest." Occidental, and Maguindanao-Cotabato City, shall participate
in the election.
E. That the provision for the strict implementation of the
rotation rule among the Chapters in the Regions for the J. That, thereafter, a special election should also be held by the
election of the Governor for the regions, (as ordered by this Board of Governors to elect the Executive Vice President for the
Honorable Court in Bar Matter No. 586, May 14, 1991) should 2009-2011 term with strict observance of the rotation rule.
be incorporated in Sec. 39, Article VI of the By-Laws, as follows: Inasmuch as for the past nine (9) terms, i.e., since the 1991-
1993 term, the nominees of the Western Visayas and Eastern
Mindanao Regions have not yet been elected Executive Vice P.R.O. - - - - - - - - - - - - Ernesto Tabujara III
President of the IBP, the special election shall choose only Director - - - - - - - - - - - Annalou Nachura
between the nominees of these two (2) regions who shall Director - - - - - - - - - - - Melody Sampaga
become the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term, in Director - - - - - - - - - - - Francois Rivera
accordance with the strict rotation rule. Director - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph Cerezo
Director - - - - - - - - - - - Marita Iris Laqui
K. That the high-handed and divisive tactics of Atty. Rogelio A.
Vinluan and his group of Governors, Abelardo Estrada, It is important to be an officer of one’s Chapter and a delegate
Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund to the House of Delegates, because a delegate gets to elect the
Mercado, which disrupted the peaceful and orderly flow of Governor for the Region (which must rotate among the
business in the IBP, caused chaos in the National Office, bitter Chapters in the region). The Governor of the Region becomes a
disagreements, and ill-feelings, and almost disintegrated the member of the Board of Governors, and gets to elect, or be
Integrated Bar, constituted grave professional misconduct elected, as the next IBP Executive Vice President who
which should be appropriately sanctioned to discourage its automatically becomes President for the next succeeding term
repetition in the future. (which must also rotate among the Regions).2

II. Findings of the Special Committee The Special Committee then pointed out that with respect to
the IBP Board of Governors this consists of "nine (9) Governors
In its Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, the from the nine (9) Regions. One (1) Governor for each Region
Special Committee disclosed when it was discussing the Board shall be elected by the members of the House of Delegates
of Officers of each chapter that: from that region only. The Governors, the President and the
Executive Vice-President shall hold office for a term of two (2)
The government of a Chapter is vested in its Board of Officers years from July 1 immediately following their election, up to
composed of nine (9) officers, namely: the President, Vice- June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors
President, Secretary, Treasurer, and five (5) Directors who shall shall have been duly chosen and qualified." It was further
be elected by the members of the Chapter at the biennial added by the Committee that:
meeting on the last Saturday of February, and shall hold office
for a term of two (2) years from the first day of April following At least one (1) month before the national convention, the
their election and until their successors shall have been duly delegates from each Region shall elect the Governor for their
chosen and qualified. For the 2009-2011 term, the election of region. The IBP By-Laws provide that "starting in 1993-1995,
Chapter officers was held on February 28, 2009. the principle on rotation shall be strictly implemented so that
all prior elections for Governor in the region shall be reckoned
In 1983 up to 1995, the Quezon City Chapter elected the usual with or considered in determining who should be Governor to
nine (9) officers to its Board of Officers and they were all be selected from the different chapters to represent the region
delegates to the House of Delegates. Beginning with the 1997- in the Board of Governors. Hence, the governorship of the
1999 term, when it added a Public Relations Officer (P.R.O.) and region shall rotate among the chapters in the region.
Auditor to its Board of Officers, the number of delegates
allotted to the Chapter was also increased to eleven (11) like The Governors-elect shall, by a vote of at least five (5), choose
the membership in its Board of Officers, pursuant to a an Executive Vice-President, x x x either from among
reapportionment of delegates by the Board of Governors under themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar. The
Sec. 30, Art. V of the By-Laws. Executive Vice-President shall automatically become President
for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate
Up to the 2007-2009 term, all the officers of the QC Chapter among the nine (9) Regions.3
were also the Chapter’s delegates to the House of Delegates.
Atty. Victoria Loanzon who has been an officer of the Chapter According to the Committee, the "rotation of the position of
in various capacities since 2003, like her fellow officers in the Governor of a region among the Chapters was ordered by the
Board, automatically became a delegate since 2003 up to this Supreme Court in its Resolution dated May 14, 1991 in Bar
time. Matter No. 586 (Clarification Re: Bar Matter No. 491, Atty.
Romulo T. Capulong petitioner)". With respect thereto, it was
For the 2009-2011 term, the Board of Officers of the IBP-QC revealed that:
Chapter that assumed office on April 1, 2009, is composed of
six (6) officers and (5) directors, namely: Pursuant to the principle of rotation, the governorship of a
region shall rotate once in as many terms as the number of
President - - - - - - - - - - Tranquil Salvador III chapters there are in the region, to give every chapter a chance
Vice President - - - - - - Jonas Cabochan to represent the region in the Board of Governors. Thus, in a
Secretary - - - - - - - - - - Christian Fernandez region composed of 5 chapters, each chapter is entitled to the
Treasurer - - - - - - - - - - Victoria Loanzon governorship once in every 5 terms, or once every ten (10)
Auditor - - - - - - - - - - - Ginger Anne Castillo years, since a term is two (2) years.
The record of the National IBP Secretariat shows that during Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) –Bicolandia --------
the past five (5) terms, from 1999 up to 2009, the GMR (Greater 2003-2005
Manila Region) governorship was occupied by the five (5) Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) –Bicolandia ----2005-
chapters of the region as follows: Aug 2006
Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Albay) ---------- Bicolandia --- Aug.
1999-2001 ----- Jose P. Icaonapo ------------ Manila III 2006-2007
2001-2003 ----- Santos V. Catubay, Jr. ---- QuezonCity Feliciano M. Bautista (Pangasinan) ------ Central Luzon ----
2003-2005 ----- Rosario Setias-Reyes ------ Manila II 2007-2009
2005-2007 ----- Alicia A. Risos-Vidal ------ Manila I
2007-2009 ----- Marcial M. Magsino ------- Manila IV Only the governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice
In the next round, which starts with the 2009-2011 term, the President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and
same order of rotation should be followed by the five (5) Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
chapters, i.e., Manila III shall begin the round, to be followed by
Quezon City for 2011-2013 term, Manila for the 2013-2015 Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,
term, Manila I for the 2015-2017 term, and Manila IV for the or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be
2017-2019 term. elected as Executive Vice-President for the 2009-2011 term.
The one who is not chosen for this term, shall have his turn in
In the Western Visayas Region which is composed of ten (10) the next (2011-2013) term. Afterwards, another rotation shall
chapters, each chapter is entitled to represent the governorship commence with Greater Manila in the lead, followed by
of the region once every ten (10) terms. The first chapter to Southern Luzon, Eastern Visayas, Western Mindanao, Northern
occupy the governorship, must wait for the nine (9) other Luzon, Bicolandia, Central Luzon, and either Western Visayas or
chapters to serve their respective terms, before it may have its Eastern Mindanao at the end of the round.5
turn again as Governor of the region.
The Committee then disclosed that the controversies involved
The same rule applies to the Western Mindanao Region which herein and should be resolved are the following: (I) the dispute
is composed of twelve (12) chapters. concerning additional delegates of the QC Chapter to the
House of Delegates; (II) the election of the Governor for the
On April 25, 2009, the election of Governors for the nine (9) IBP Greater Manila Region (GMR); (III) the election of Governor for
regions proceeded as scheduled, presided over by their the Western Visayas Region; (IV) the election of Governor for
respective outgoing Governor.4 the Western Mindanao Region; (V) the resolution of the
election protests; (VI) the election of the IBP Executive Vice
President for the 2009-2011 term; and, (VII) the administrative
It was then cited by the Special Committee that "Sec. 47, Art.
complaint against EVP Rogelio Vinluan.
VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter 491, Oct. 6, 1989,
provides that the Executive Vice President shall be chosen by
the Board of Governors from among the nine (9) regional In addressing the above controversies, the Committee arrived
governors. The Executive Vice President shall automatically at the following findings and conclusions:
become President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency
shall rotate among the nine Regions." Further, the Committee I. The silence of Sec. 31, Art. V of the IBP By-Laws on who may
averred that: be elected as additional delegates and alternates by the
remaining members of the Board of Officers of the Chapter
The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee when the Chapter is entitled to more than two (2) delegates to
by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the the House of Delegates, is the root cause of the conflicting
following regions were President of the IBP during the past resolutions of the Bautista and Vinluan factions on the proper
nine (9) terms (1991-2009): interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-Laws.

Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan) --- Central Luzon --- 1991- According to the Resolution No. XVIII-2009 dated April 17,
1993 2009 of the Bautista Group, "the additional delegate/s shall be
Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon City) ------ Manila ------------ elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from
1993-1995 among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the
Raul R. Angangco (Makati) -------------- Southern Luzon - Board, in consideration of their mandate from the general
1995-1997 membership.
Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran) ----------- Eastern Visayas – 1997-
1999 According to the Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April
Arthur D. Lim (Zambasulta) ------------- Western Mindanao- 2009) of the Vinluan Group, "the election of the additional
1999-2001 delegate/s for the Chapters entitled to more than two (2)
Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga-Apayao)-Northern Luzon – 2001- delegates shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the
2003 Chapter from among the general membership who are in good
standing to include the remaining duly elected officers and the House of Delegates. That has never been the case of the
members of the Board." QC Chapter.

The Committee finds the qualification introduced by Resolution III. Atty. Manuel Maramba (Manila III Chapter) was validly
No. XVIII-2009 – "that the additional delegate/s and alternates elected as GMR Governor for the 2009-2011 term, not only
must be elected from among the remaining officers of the because he outvoted his rival, Atty. Elpidio Soriano (Quezon
Chapter" – to be consistent with the precedent set by Section City Chapter), but also because under the principle of rotation
31 itself in appointing members of the Board of Officers, of the governorship (Bar Matter No. 586, May 14, 1991) since
namely, (a) the president of the Chapter as the delegate, and the five (5) chapters of the Greater Manila Region have all
the vice president as the alternate, or second, delegate to the represented the region in the Board of Governors during the
House of Delegates, when the Chapter is entitled to two (2) past five (5) terms, in the following order:
delegates. There is a manifest intention in Sec. 31, Art. V of the
By-Laws to reserve membership in the House of Delegates 1999-2001 -------- Manila III -------- Jose P. Icaonapo
(which is the deliberative body of the IBP) for the elected 2001-2003 -------- Quezon City ----- Santos V. Catubay, Jr.
officers of the Chapter since they have already received the 2003-2005 -------- Manila II ---------- Rosario Setias-Reyes
mandate of the general membership of the Chapter. 2005-2007 -------- Manila I ----------- Alicia A. Risos-Vidal
2007-2009 -------- Manila IV --------- Marcial M. Magsino
For the past four (4) terms (2003-2011), Atty. Loanzon has been
an officer and delegate of the QC Chapter to the House of it is now the turn of the representative of the Manila III Chapter
Delegates, until the Vinluan Group introduced its own to sit again in the Board of Governors for the next round which
interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-Laws begins in the 2009-2011 term. The Manila III representative,
and elected non-officers of the Chapter as delegates to the Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, has every right to the position not
House of Delegates in lieu of herself and Atty. Laqui. only because he won the election with 13 votes in his favor
against 12 for Atty. Soriano, but also because his election
We find the Vinluan Group’s interpretation of Sec. 31, Art. V, of follows the rotation rule decreed by the Supreme Court.
the By-Laws in Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special – 23 April
2009) to be in error and devoid of rational and historical bases. On the other hand, the election of Atty. Soriano (QC Chapter)
in the special election that was presided over by EVP Vinluan
II. Attys. Victoria Loanzon and Marite Laqui were properly on May 4, 2009, was a nullity on three (3) grounds: First,
recognized as delegates of the QC Chapter by the Presiding because Atty. Soriano already lost the election on April 25,
Officer, GMR Governor Marcial Magsino, during the election on 2009. Second, the special election conducted by the Vinluan
April 25, 2009 of the Governor for the Greater Manila Region, in Group on May 4, 2(00)8 was illegal because it was not called
accordance with the guideline in Resolution No. XVIII-2009. nor presided over by the regional Governor. Third, Atty.
Soriano is disqualified to run for GMR Governor for the 2009-
The argument of the QC-Chapter President Tranquil Salvador, 2011 term because his "election" as such would violate the
that Attys. Loanzon and Laqui were not delegates because they rotation rule which the Supreme Court requires to be "strictly
were not elected by the QC-Board of Officers, is not well taken. implemented". Under the rotation rule, the GMR governorship
for the 2009-2011 term belongs to the Manila III Chapter, not
Sec. 31, Art. V of the By-Laws provides that: to the QC Chapter, whose turn will come two (2) years later, in
2011-2013 yet.

"Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be


elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter." IV. Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter was duly
elected as Governor for the Western Visayas Region for the
2009-2011 term, not only because he obtained the highest
The QC Chapter is not a "proper case" for the election of
number of votes among the three (3) candidates for the
additional delegates by the Board of Officers because the
position, but also because under the rotation rule, it is now the
Chapter is entitled to the same number of delegates (11) to the
turn of the Romblon Chapter to represent the Western Visayas
House, as the number of officers in its Board of Officers. Its
Region in the IBP Board of Governors.
officers are ipso facto the Chapter’s delegates to the House.
There is no need for the Board of Officers to conduct an
election. The contention of the protestants, Attys. Cornelio Aldon
(Antique Chapter) and Benjamin Ortega (Negros Occidental
Chapter) that the rotation rule in Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP
A "proper case" for the election of additional delegates and
By-Laws is not mandatory but only directory, betrays their
alternates by the Board of Officers occurs when the number of
ignorance of the resolution of the Supreme Court in Bar Matter
additional delegates and alternates for the Chapter is less than
No. 586 dated May 16, 1991, ruling that "the principle on
the members of the Board of Officers, for, then, the Board of
rotation shall be strictly implemented so that all prior elections
Officers must select, and elect, who among themselves should
for governor in the region shall be reckoned with or considered
be the additional delegate/s and alternates of the Chapter to
in determining who should be the governor to be selected
from the different chapters to represent the region in the Board VI. The elections for the IBP Executive Vice President separately
of Governors." held on May 9, 2009 by the Bautista and Vinluan Groups were
null and void for lack of quorum. The presence of five (5)
V. Neither Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic nor Atty. Benjamin Lanto Governors-elect is needed to constitute a quorum of the 9-
is qualified to be elected Governor of Western Mindanao member Board of Governors-elect who shall elect the Executive
Region. Sec. 39, Art. VI of the IBP By-Laws provides that: Vice President.
"Starting in 1993-1995, the principle of rotation in the position
of governor among the different chapters to represent the As previously stated, there were two (2) simultaneous elections
region in the Board of Governors shall be strictly implemented. for the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term – one
was called and presided over by EVP Vinluan in the Board
Under Sec. 37, Art. VI of the By-Laws, the Governor of a region Room of the IBP National Office, while the other election for
shall be elected by the members of the House of Delegates the same position was presided over by outgoing IBP Pres.
from that region only. Since the delegate of a Chapter to the Bautista in another room of the same building, at the same
House of Delegates is the President of the Chapter, not the time, 9:00 A.M., on the same date, May 9, 2009.
Board of Officers, the nominee of the Chapter President, not
the nominee of the Board of Officers, is the valid nominee for Those present at the meeting of the Vinluan Group were:
Governor of the Region.
1. Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano
However, under the rotation rule, it is not the Lanao del Sur 2. Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto
Chapter that should represent the Western Mindanao Region 3. Atty. Amador Tolentino, Jr., Governor-elect for Southern
in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term. The record Luzon
of the IBP National Secretariat shows that, starting in 1993- 4. Atty. Jose V. Cabrera, Governor-elect for Bicolandia
1995 when the strict implementation of the rotation rule 5. Atty. Erwin Fortunato, Governor-elect for Western Visayas
began, the 12-chapter Western Mindanao Region has been
represented in the Board of Governors by only six (6) Chapters, 6. Atty. Roland B. Inting, Governor-elect for Eastern Visayas
as follows:
Since both Attys. Soriano and Lanto were not validly elected as
1993-1995 ----- Lanao del Sur ------ Dimnatang T. Saro Governors respectively of the Greater Manila Region and the
1995-1997 ----- Cotabato ------------ George C. Jabido Western Mindanao Region, they were disqualified to sit in the
1997-1999 ----- ZAMBASULTA -- Arthur D. Lim incoming Board of Governors and participate in the election of
1999-2001 ----- ZAMBASULTA -- Paulino R. Ersando the succeeding Executive Vice President. The remaining four (4)
2001-2003 ----- North Cotabato --- Little Sarah A. Agdeppa Governors-elect – Governors Tolentino, Cabrera, Fortunato, and
2003-2005 ----- Sultan Kudarat ---- Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. Inting, did not constitute a quorum of the Board of Governors
2005-2007 ----- SOCSARGEN ----- Rogelio C. Garcia to conduct a valid election of the IBP Executive Vice President.
2007-2009 ----- Sultan Kudarat ---- Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. The election of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano as Executive Vice
President by the Vinluan Group was invalid. Aside from lack of
Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation, the Lanao del Sur a quorum to conduct the elections, EVP Vinluan wrongly
Chapter must wait for the six (6) other Chapters in the region presided over the election. Thus, Atty. Soriano was not duly
(Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del elected as Governor of the Greater Manila Region, hence, he is
Sur, Lanao del Norte, Misamis Occidental, and Maguindanao- disqualified to sit in the Board of Governors.
Cotabato City) to have their turn in the Board of Governors
before Lanao del Sur may again represent the Western Neither did the meeting of the Bautista Group fare any better,
Mindanao Region in the Board of Governors. for those present were:

Since both Attys. Nasser Marohomsalic and B(e)njamin Lanto 1. Atty. Milagros Fernan-Cayosa, Governor-elect for Northern
belong to the Lanao del Sur Chapter, both of them are Luzon
disqualified to be elected as Governor of the Western 2. Atty. Ferdinand Y. Miclat, Governor-elect for Central Luzon
Mindanao Region for the 2009-2011 term. With respect to Atty. 3. Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, Governor-elect for Greater Manila
Benjamin Lanto, his nomination by the Board of Officers was 4. Atty. Roan Libarios, Governor-elect for Eastern Mindanao
not only invalid, but also lost credibility after three (3), out of 5. Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic
the thirteen (13) signatories to his nomination, resigned from
the Board of Officers, and six (6) others signed "authorizations" Atty. Marohomsalic’s election as Governor for Western
in favor of Atty. Macalawi authorizing him to nominate and Mindanao was invalid for violating the rotation rule. The four
elect the Governor for the Western Mindanao Region. That left (4) remaining governors-elect (Attys. Cayosa, Miclat, Maramba
only four (4) votes in favor of his nomination for Governor of and Libarios) like those in the Vinluan Group, did not constitute
the Western Mindanao Region. a quorum to conduct the election of the IBP Executive Vice
President for the current term. The election of Governor Roan
Libarios as Executive Vice President by this group was therefore election of the GMR Governor which they set on May 4, 2009
null and void. was invalid.

Besides that flaw in his election, since the Eastern Visayas 3. The "Board Resolution" which was adopted and faxed to the
Region, represented by Governor Jose Aguila Grapilon of Governors-elect on May 8, 2009, by the Vinluan Group, setting
Biliran, had succeeded to the presidency in 1997-1999, its next the election of the IBP Executive Vice President on May 9, 2009,
turn will come after the eight (8) other regions shall have also at 9:00 A.M.; declaring Pres. Bautista "unfit to preside" over the
served in the presidency. That will be after sixteen years, or, in election and "designating EVP Vinluan to preside over the
2015-2017 yet. election" in lieu of Pres. Bautista, was uncalled and
unwarranted, and caused disunity and disorder in the IBP. It
VII. The administrative complaint against EVP Rogelio A. was in effect a coup to unseat Pres. Bautista before the end of
Vinluan and his Group of Governors (Abelardo Estrada of his term, and prematurely install EVP Vinluan as president.
Northern Luzon, Bonifacio Barandon of Bicolandia, Evergisto
Escalon of Eastern Visayas, and Raymund Mercado of Western The actuations of Atty. Vinluan’s Group in defying the lawful
Visayas) is meritorious, for their conduct was fractious and authority of IBP President Bautista, due to Atty. Vinluan’s
high-handed, causing disunity and acrimonious disagreements overweening desire to propel his fraternity brother, Atty.
in the IBP. Elpidio G. Soriano, to the next presidency of the IBP, smacked
of politicking, which is strongly condemned and strictly
1. The request of the EVP Vinluan’s Group for a special meeting prohibited by the IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration Rule.6
of the Board of Governors on April 23, 2009 – two (2) days
before the scheduled election of the regional Governors on Again, it must be noted that while the pending administrative
April 25, 2009 – when IBP Pres. Bautista was in Zamboanga on case against Atty. Vinluan and his co-respondents has not yet
IBP business, and the other Governors had just returned to been resolved, Atty. Vinluan was not allowed to assume his
their respective regions to prepare for the April 25 election of position as President of the IBP for 2009-2011. Instead, the
the regional governors, was unreasonable. Supreme Court designated retired Supreme Court Associate
Justice Santiago Kapunan as Officer-in-Charge of the IBP.
The special meeting on April 23, 2009 which he himself
presided over, violated Sec. 42, Art. VI of the By-Laws which III. Rulings of the Court
provides that it is the President who shall call a special meeting,
and it is also the President who shall preside over the meeting, The Court completely agrees with the recommendations of the
not Atty. Vinluan (Sec. 50, Art. VII, By-Laws). Special Committee with respect to, among others, the
following:
The proper recourse for the Vinluan Group, in view of President
Bautista’s refusal to call a special meeting as requested by 1. Declaring Atty. Manuel M. Maramba (Manila III Chapter) as
them, is found in Section 43, Art. VI of the By-Laws which the duly elected Governor of the Greater Manila Region for the
provides that- 2009-2011 term7; and,

"The Board may take action, without a meeting, by resolution 2. Declaring Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato (Romblon Chapter) as the
signed by at least five Governors provided that every member duly elected Governor of the Western Visayas Region for the
of the Board shall have been previously apprised of the 2009-2011 term8.
contents of the resolution."
As far as the Court is concerned, there is no dispute that the
But the Vinluan Group ignored that procedure. They held a election of Atty. Maramba was in order. During the election
special meeting on April 23, 2009, where they adopted held last April 25, 2009 which was duly presided over by then
Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April 2009) striking out outgoing Greater Manila Region Governor Marcial Magsino, it
as ultra vires the earlier Resolution No. XVIII-2009 passed in the was Atty. Maramba who garnered the highest number of votes
regular monthly meeting of the Board of Governors on April among the delegates compared to Atty. Soriano, 13 votes to 12
17, 2009. That meeting was illegal, hence, the resolution votes. However, instead of accepting the said defeat graciously,
adopted therein was null and void. Atty. Soriano then filed an election protest on April 27, 2009
claiming that the said election was void because there were
2. The second special meeting held by the Vinluan Group on non-delegates, particularly Attys. Loanzon and Laqui of the
April 30, 2009 wherein they approved Resolution XVIII-2009 Quezon City Chapter, who were allowed to vote. Consequently,
(Special-A-30 April 2009) resolving the election protests in the Atty. Soriano got a favorable ruling from the group of Atty.
GMR, Western Visayas and Western Mindanao governors’ Vinluan, as EVP, and former Governors Estrada (Northern
elections, with complete disregard for the protestees’ right to Luzon), Barandon, Jr. (Bicolandia), Escalon (Eastern Visayas) and
due process, was likewise illegal, hence, the Group’s resolution Mercado (Western Visayas) per Resolution No. XVIII-2009
of the election protests was likewise null and void, and the new (Special A-30 April 2009). This then resulted in the anomalous
election of Atty. Soriano as Governor of the Greater Manila chapter which is entitled to be elected for the said position, but
Region last May 4, 2009. also got the highest number of votes among the candidates
that included protestees Attys. Aldon and Ortega. As the
In addressing the said controversy, and as already discussed, election was presided over by then outgoing Governor
the Committee concluded that "the Vinluan Group’s Raymund Mercado, the Court finds no cogent reason as well to
interpretation of Sec. 31, Art. V, of the By-Laws in Resolution reverse the findings of the Committee insofar as upholding the
No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April 2009) to be in error and devoid election of Atty. Fortunato is concerned. Suffice it to say, the
of rational and historical bases." It was then pointed out that Committee was correct in not finding any anomaly with respect
"(t)he argument of the QC-Chapter President Tranquil Salvador, thereto.1avvphi1
(as well as by Atty. Soriano), that Attys. Loanzon and Laqui were
not delegates because they were not elected by the QC-Board On the nullification of the election of Atty. Nasser
of Officers, is not well taken." Likewise, the Committee Marohomsalic as Governor for the Western Mindanao Region,
considered the situation then involving the Quezon City the Court does not agree with the recommendation of the
Chapter as "not a ‘proper case’ for the election of additional Committee to hold a special election in the said region9.
delegates by the Board of Officers because the Chapter is Instead, the Court rules to uphold the election of Atty.
entitled to the same number of delegates (11) to the House (of Marohomsalic last April 25, 2009 which was presided over by
Delegates), as the number of officers in its Board of Officers. Its then outgoing Governor Carlos Valdez, Jr.
officers are ipso facto the Chapter’s delegates to the House.
There is no need for the Board of Officers to conduct an It must be pointed out that Atty. Marohomsalic was duly
election." nominated by Atty. Alex Macalawi, President of the Lanao del
Sur Chapter, and the official delegate of the said chapter to the
Thus, and as rightly determined by the Committee to which the House of Delegates for the Western Mindanao Region during
Court subscribes to, "the election of Atty. Soriano (QC Chapter) the elections held last April 25, 2009. On the other hand, Atty.
in the special election that was presided over by EVP Vinluan Benjamin Lanto was supposedly nominated by the Board of
on May 4, 2009, was a nullity on three (3) grounds: First, Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter, except Atty. Macalawi, in
because Atty. Soriano already lost the election on April 25, Resolution No. 002-2009 dated February 28, 2009. However, it
2009. Second, the special election conducted by the Vinluan appears that, as discovered by the Committee, "three (3)
Group on May 4, 2(009) was illegal because it was not called signatories of the resolution" apparently "resigned as members
nor presided by the regional Governor (Atty. Magsino). Third, of the Board of Officers" since they are prosecutors who are
Atty. Soriano is disqualified to run for GMR Governor for the "ineligible for election or appointment to any position in the
2009-2011 term because his "election" as such would violate Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof", while "(s)ix (6) other
the rotation rule which the Supreme Court requires to be signatories of the resolution" allegedly "recalled their
"strictly implemented"." This being so, since he was not a duly signatures" and they, instead, "signed an ‘authorization’
elected Governor of the Greater Manila Region, then Atty. authorizing the Chapter President, Atty. Macalawi, "to select
Soriano cannot be voted as well as IBP Executive Vice President and vote" "for the Regional Governor for Western Mindanao"."
for 2009-2011. Thus, "(t)he withdrawal of nine (9) signatures from the
Resolution No. 002, left only four (4) votes in support of Lanto’s
With respect to the case of Atty. Fortunato, his election as nomination – a puny minority of the 14-member Board of
Governor for the Western Visayas Region was upheld since "he Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter." 10
obtained the highest number of votes among the three (3)
candidates for the position" and "also because under the The attempt of Atty. Vinluan and his group of Governors to
rotation rule, it is now the turn of the Romblon Chapter to nullify the election of Atty. Marohomsalic through Resolution
represent the Western Visayas Region in the IBP Board of No. XVIII-2009 (Special A-30 April 2009) was clearly irregular
Governors." On account thereof, the Court is convinced that and unjustified. Based on the April 25, 2009 election results,
the contentions of protestees Attys. Cornelio Aldon (Antique Atty. Marohomsalic won over his rival Atty. Lanto, 6 votes to 5
Chapter) and Benjamin Ortega (Negros Occidental Chapter) votes. Consequently, he was duly proclaimed as the elected
cannot prosper. After all, the Court already upheld per its Governor of the Western Mindanao Region. On April 27, 2009,
Resolution in Bar Matter No. 586 dated May 16, 1991 that the Atty. Lanto filed an election protest, "questioning the validity of
"rotation rule" under Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP By-Laws Atty. Marohomsalic’s nomination by Atty. Macalawi, President
"shall be strictly implemented so that all prior elections for of the IBP Lanao del Sur Chapter, and claiming that his (Lanto’s)
governor in the region shall be reckoned with or considered in nomination by the Board of Officers of the Lanao del Sur
determining who should be the governor to be selected from Chapter was the valid nomination."
the different chapters to represent the region in the Board of
Governors." More so, when the concerned chapter invoked its Immediately, on April 30, 2009, the group of Atty. Vinluan
right thereto as in the case of Atty. Fortunato who came from issued Resolution No. XVIII-2009 proclaiming Atty. Lanto as the
the Romblon Chapter which was next in the rotation. duly elected Governor without affording Atty. Marohomsalic his
right to due process. More importantly, instead of calling for
To the Court, the election of Atty. Fortunato as Governor last another election like what it did for the Greater Manila Region,
April 25, 2009 is well-settled. He did not only come from the the group of Atty. Vinluan proceeded to instantly declare Atty.
Lanto as having been duly elected "on the ground that the Sur, Lanao del Norte, Misamis Occidental, and Maguindanao-
nomination of the protestee, Nasser Marohomsalic, was Cotabato City) to have their turn in the Board of Governors
contrary to the will of the Lanao del Sur Chapter expressed before Lanao del Sur may again represent the Western
through Board Resolution No. 00(2)-2009 of the Board of Mindanao Region in the Board of Governors.
Officers (of the Lanao del Sur Chapter)."11
Since both Attys. Nasser Marohomsalic and Benjamin Lanto
As borne out by the records, Atty. Marohomsalic was duly belong to the Lanao del Sur Chapter, both of them are
nominated by Atty. Alex Macalawi, President of the Lanao del disqualified to be elected as Governor of the Western
Sur Chapter, and the official delegate of the said chapter to the Mindanao Region for the 2009-2011 term.
House of Delegates for the Western Mindanao Region during
the elections. On the other hand, Atty. Lanto was supposedly The ruling of the Committee insofar as it nullified the election
nominated by the Board of Officers of the same Chapter in a of Atty. Marohomsalic as Governor of the Western Mindanao
resolution dated February 28, 2009, which was not signed and Region cannot be sustained for not being in full accord with
approved by Atty. Macalawi. However, and as already pointed facts and the rules. While the Committee may have correctly
out by the Committee, the "withdrawal of nine (9) signatures pointed out that under the rotation rule it was not yet the turn
from the Resolution No. 002, left only four (4) votes in support of IBP Lanao del Sur Chapter to represent the region in the
of Lanto’s nomination – a puny minority of the 14-member Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term, it does not
Board of Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter."12 necessarily follow that the result of the elections should be
altogether nullified on that ground. Evidently, and as
Thus, the Committee, citing Sec. 37, Art. VI of the By-Laws, determined by the Committee itself, there are instances when
clearly repudiated and overturned Resolution No. XVIII-2009 the "rotation rule" was not followed insofar as the elections in
(Special A- 30 April 2009) of Atty. Vinluan and his group of 1999 and 2007 were concerned with respect to the Western
Governors. In its Report, it declared that the "nominee of the Mindanao Region.
Chapter President, not the nominee of the Board of Officers, is
the valid nominee for Governor of the Region,"13 thereby In the regular election of April 25, 2009, there is no dispute that
sustaining the position of Atty. Marohomsalic and, in effect, the the voting delegates of IBP Western Mindanao Region voted
validity of his nomination by Atty. Macalawi. into office Atty. Marohomsalic of Lanao del Sur Chapter as
Governor for the 2009-2011 term. During the said election, his
Despite the said findings, Atty. Marohomsalic was stripped of only rival was Atty. Benjamin Lanto who also belongs to the
his electoral mandate and victory when the Committee, same Lanao del Sur Chapter. A third candidate, Atty. Escobar
invoking the strict application of the "rotation rule," proceeded from the Sarangani Chapter, was nominated but he declined
to altogether nullify the result of the elections duly conducted the nomination.
on April 25, 2009. According to the Committee, neither Lanto
nor Marohomsalic is qualified to be elected governor because While the Committee points out that six (6) chapters in the
it was not the turn of Lanao del Sur chapter to represent the region, including Sarangani, are entitled to precedence over
Western Mindanao Region in the Board of Governors for the the Lanao del Sur chapter in the order of rotation, the fact
2009-2011 term. As declared in the Report -- remains that not one of them nominated or fielded a candidate
from their respective ranks during the April 25, 2009 election.
However, under the rotation rule, it is not the Lanao del Sur Neither did any one of them challenge the nominations of the
Chapter that should represent the Western Mindanao Region Lanao del Sur Chapter based on the order of rotation.
in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term. The record
of the IBP National Secretariat shows that, starting in 1993- By not fielding a candidate for Governor and by declining the
1995 when the strict implementation of the rotation rule nomination raised in favor of its Chapter President (Atty.
began, the 12 –chapter Western Mindanao Region has been Escobar), the IBP Sarangani Chapter is deemed to have waived
represented in the Board of Governors only six (6) Chapters, as its turn in the rotation order. The same can be said of the
follows: remaining chapters. They too are deemed to have waived their
turn in the rotation as they opted not to field or nominate a
1993-1995---Lanao del Sur-----Dimnatang T. Saro candidate from among their respective members. Neither did
1995-1997---Cotatabato---------George C. Jabido they invoke the rotation rule to challenge the nominations
1997-1999---ZAMBASULTA—Arthur D. Lim from the Lanao del Sur Chapter. On the contrary, they fully
1999-2001---ZAMBASULTA---Paulino R. Ersando expressed their concurrence to the cited nominations, which
2001-2003---North Cotabato---- Little Sarah A. Agdeppa may be interpreted as a waiver of their right to take their turn
2003-2005---Sultan Kudarat-----Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. to represent the region in the Board of Governors for the 2009-
2005-2007---SOCSARGEN-----Rogelio C. Garcia 2011 term.
2007-2009---Sultan Kudarat-----Carlos L. Valdez, Jr.
It need not be stressed that, as cited by the Committee itself,
Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation rule, the Lanao del Sur there were instances when the Governor of the Western
Chapter must wait for the six (6) other Chapters in the region Mindanao Region came from the same chapter such as
(Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del ZAMBASULTA (1997-1999 & 1999-2001) and Sultan Kudarat
(2003-2005 & 2007-2009). Thus, Atty. Marohomsalic could not With the election of Atty. Marohomsalic as Governor of
be faulted if the other chapters opted not to field or nominate Western Mindanao being deemed valid, then the defect of lack
their own candidates. Having been validly nominated and duly of quorum that supposedly tainted the election proceedings
proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of Western Mindanao, for EVP separately conducted by IBP President Bautista may
Atty. Marohomsalic therefore deserves to assume his position have been cured, five (5) Governors being sufficient to
during the remainder of the term. constitute a quorum.

It would have been a different story if another Chapter in the Be that as it may, the recommendation of the Committee to
order of rotation fielded its own candidate or invoked the hold a special election for the EVP for the remaining 2009-2011
rotation rule to challenge Atty. Marohomsalic’s nomination. But term deserves to be upheld to heal the divisions in the IBP and
the record is bereft of any showing that his nomination and promote unity by enabling all the nine (9) Governors-elect to
subsequent election was challenged on that basis. If there was elect the EVP in a unified meeting called for that purpose. This
any challenge at all, it merely referred to his nomination by will enable matters to start on a clean and correct slate, free
Atty. Macalawi which the Committee itself has found to be in from the politicking and the under handed tactics that have
order. Thus, no compelling reason exists to disregard the characterized the IBP elections for so long.
electoral mandate and nullify the will of the voting delegates as
expressed through the ballot. In the conduct of the unified election of the incoming EVP, the
following findings and recommendations of the Committee
The "rotation rule" is not absolute but subject to waiver as shall be adopted:
when the chapters in the order of rotation opted not to field or
nominate their own candidates for Governor during the THE ROTATION OF THE PRESIDENCY AMONG THE REGIONS-
election regularly done for that purpose. If a validly nominated
candidate obtains the highest number of votes in the election Sec. 47, Art. VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter 491,
conducted, his electoral mandate deserves to be respected Oct. 6, 1989, provides that the Executive Vice President shall be
unless obtained through fraud as established by evidence. Such chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine (9)
is not the case here. regional governors. The Executive Vice President shall
automatically become President for the next succeeding term.
Suffice it to say, the "rotation rule" should be applied in The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions."
harmony with, and not in derogation of, the sovereign will of
the electorate as expressed through the ballot. Thus, Atty. The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee
Marohomsalic cannot be divested and deprived of his electoral by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
mandate and victory. The order of rotation is not a rigid and following regions were President of the IBP during the past
inflexible rule as to bar its relaxation in exceptional and nine (9) terms (1991-2009):
compelling circumstances.

Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan)…Central Luzon…1991-


If only to stress, compared to the case of Atty. Fortunato whose 1993
Romblon Chapter invoked the "rotation rule," no chapter in the Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon City)… Greater Manila 1993-1995
Western Mindanao Region which was next in the rotation Raul R. Anchangco (Makati)…Southern Luzon…1995-1997
invoked the said rule. Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran)… Eastewrn Visayas … 1997-1999
Arthur D. Lim ( Zambasulta)…Western Mindanao…1999-2001
Now, in its Report, the Committee nullified the elections for the Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga Apayao)…Northern Luzon…2001-
IBP EVP separately and simultaneously conducted by President 2003
Bautista and EVP Vinluan on May 9, 2009 and called for a Jose Anselmo L. Cadiz (Camarines Sur)…Bicolandia…2005-Aug.
special election14 for the same. In the case of the election 2006
conducted by EVP Vinluan, the results were nullified for lack of Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Albay)…Bicolandia… Aug. 2006-2007
authority to preside over the election and for lack quorum, Feliciano M. Bautista (Pangasinan)…Central Luzon…2007-2009
citing the disqualification of Attys. Soriano and Lanto to sit in
the incoming Board of Governors. The finding deserves to be Only the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
sustained. Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice
President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and
In the same Report, the Committee also nullified the result of Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
the election for the incoming EVP conducted by President
Bautista. While recognizing President Bautista’s authority to Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,
conduct the election, the Committee nonetheless nullified the or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be
election results for lack of quorum, citing the ineligibility of elected as Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term.
Atty. Marohomsalic to sit in the incoming Board of Governors,
thereby leaving only four (out of nine) Governors-elect in
Accordingly, a special election shall be held by the present
attendance which did not constitute a quorum.
nine-man IBP Board of Governors to elect the EVP for the
remainder of the term of 2009-2011, which shall be presided the same fate for betraying as well the trust bestowed on them
over and conducted by IBP Officer-in-Charge Justice Santiago for the high positions that they previously held.
Kapunan (Ret.) within seven (7) days from notice.
The Resolution of the Court in the case of Re: 1989 Elections of
Further, in its report, the Committee declared that "the high- the Integrated Bar of the Philippines17 already declared that
handed and divisive tactics of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan and his unethical practices of lawyers during IBP elections cannot but
group of Governors, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon Jr., result in the stature of the IBP as an association of the
Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund Mercado, which disrupted the practitioners of a noble and honored profession being
peaceful and orderly flow of business in the IBP, caused chaos diminished. As held therein, "(r)espect for law is gravely eroded
in the National Office, bitter disagreements, and ill-feelings, when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be minions of
and almost disintegrated the Integrated Bar, constituted grave the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside
professional misconduct which should be appropriately the very rules that the IBP formulated for their
sanctioned to discourage its repetition in the future." 15 observance." 18 Indeed, the said strong and vigorous
declaration of this Court on the 1989 IBP Election scandal is
The Committee, however, fell short of determining and relevant here.
recommending the appropriate penalty for the grave
professional misconduct found to have been committed by While Atty. Vinluan and his group deserve to be stripped of
Atty. Vinluan and his group of Governors. Still, with the above their positions in the IBP, this can no longer be done as their
firm and unequivocal findings and declarations of the terms as Governors already expired, specially on the part of
Committee against Atty. Vinluan and his group that included Attys. Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado. However, in
Attys. Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado as the case of Atty. Vinluan, as former EVP of the IBP he would
"unprofessional" members of the IBP Board of Governors have automatically succeeded to the presidency for the term
(2007-2009 term) they certainly do not deserve to hold such 2009-2011 but now should not be allowed to. After all, and
esteemed positions. considering the findings of the Committee, he has clearly
manifested his unworthiness to hold the said post. On account
It has long been held that, as provided for in Rule 1.01, Canon 1 thereof, Atty. Vinluan is thus declared unfit to assume the
of the Code of Professional Responsibility16 that "(a) lawyer position of IBP President. To the Court, if Atty. Vinluan cannot
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful be fit to become a Governor and EVP of the IBP then he is not
conduct." Added to this, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 requires that "(a) entitled to succeed as its President for the 2009-2011 term.
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or Also, Atty. Vinluan and his group should no longer be allowed
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of to run as national officers to prevent such similar irregularity
the legal profession." In the case at bar, such canons find from happening again. Thus, in subsequent elections of the IBP,
application. they are disqualified to run as candidates.

In addition, it was clear to the Committee, and the Court On the recommendation of the Committee to amend Sections
agrees, that "(t)he actuations of Atty. Vinluan’s Group in 3119, 33, par. (g) 20, 3921, 4222, and 4323, Article VI and Section
defying the lawful authority of IBP President Bautista, due to 4724, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, the Court finds the same in
Atty. Vinluan’s overweening desire to propel his fraternity order. As such, and in order to immediately effect reforms in
brother, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano, to the next presidency of the the IBP, particularly in the holding of its elections for national
IBP, smacked of politicking, which is strongly condemned and officers, the subject amendments are hereby adopted and
strictly prohibited by the IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration approved.
Rule." Indeed, said actuations of Atty. Vinluan and his group of
former IBP Governors Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves that:
Mercado were grossly inimical to the interest of the IBP and
were violative of their solemn oath as lawyers. After all, what 1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin M.
they did served only to benefit the apparently selfish goals of Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors for the
defeated candidate Atty. Elpidio Soriano to be elected as IBP Greater Manila Region, Western Visayas Region and Western
EVP and be the next IBP President for the 2011-2013 term by Mindanao Region, respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are
hook or by crook. UPHELD;

Bearing the above in mind, what Attys. Vinluan, Estrada, 2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice President
Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado conspired to do was truly for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED to be held under
"high-handed and divisive" that must not pass unsanctioned. the supervision of this Court within seven (7) days from receipt
Otherwise, future leaders of the IBP, Governors at that, might of this Resolution with Attys. Maramba, Fortunato and
be similarly inclined to do what they did, much to the prejudice Marohomsalic being allowed to represent and vote as duly-
of the IBP and its membership. Surely, this should be addressed elected Governors of their respective regions;
without much delay so as to nip-in-the-bud such gross
misconduct and unprofessionalism. They all deserve to suffer
3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon,
Jr., Evergisto Escalon and Raymund Mercado are all found MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their JR.
Associate Justice
actuations in connection with the controversies in the elections Associate Justice
in the IBP last April 25, 2009 and May 9, 2009 and are hereby
disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any (No part)
JOSE CATRAL
subsequent election. While their elections as Governors for the MARIA LOURDES P. A.
MENDOZA
term 2007-2009 can no longer be annulled as this has already SERENO
Associate Justice
expired, Atty. Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of Associate Justice
IBP Executive Vice President for the 2007-2009 term and
therefore barred from succeeding as IBP President for the
2009-2011 term;
Footnotes
4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39,
42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By- * On official leave but left dissenting opinion.
Laws as contained in the Report and Recommendation of the ** On sick leave but left concurring vote.
1 Composed of Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (Ret.), as
Special Committee dated July 9, 2009 are hereby approved and
adopted; and Chairman, and Justices Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.) and Romeo J.
Callejo, Sr. (Ret.), as Members.
2 Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, pp. 4-5.
5. The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago Kapunan as
3 Ibid, p. 6.
Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall continue, unless earlier
4 Ibid, pp. 7-8.
revoked by the Court, but not to extend beyond June 30, 2011.
5 Ibid, pp. 8-9.

6 Ibid, pp. 21-28.


SO ORDERED.
7 Letter G, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
8 Letter H, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
RENATO C. CORONA 9 Letter (I), Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
Chief Justice 10 Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, pp. 14-15.

11 Ibid, p. 17.
WE CONCUR: 12 Ibid, pp. 14-15.

13 Ibid, p. 24.

14
Letter J, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
I join the dissenting (No part) 15 Letter K, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
opinion of J. Velasco CONCHITA CARPIO 16 Promulgated on June 21, 1988.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO MORALES 17 178 SCRA 398.
Associate Justice Associate Justice 18 Re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

178 SCRA 398, 418.


On official leave but left 19 Letter A, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

dissenting opinion. (No part) 20 Letter B, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

See dissenting opinion. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. 21 Letter C, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

PRESBITERO J. NACHURA 22 Letter C, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

VELASCO, JR.* Associate Justice 23 Letter E, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

Associate Justice 24 Letter F, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

I certify that J. Brion filed


TERESITA J. LEONARDO-
his concurring vote:
DE CASTRO
ARTURO D. BRION**
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

(No part)
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

(No part)
MARIANO C. DEL ROBERTO A. ABAD
CASTILLO Associate Justice
Associate Justice
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC 3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon,
Jr., Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund Mercado are all found
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their
ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. actuations in connection with the controversies in the elections
in the IBP last April 25, 2009 and May 9, 2009 and are hereby
x---------------x disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any
subsequent election. While their elections as Governors for the
term 2007-2009 can no longer be annulled as this has already
A.C. No. 8292 December 4, 2012
expired, Atty. Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of
IBP Executive Vice President for the 2007-2009 term and,
A TTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. therefore, barred from succeeding as IBP President for the
MARAMBAAND NASSER MAROHOMSALIC, Complainants, 2009-2011 term;
vs.
ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA,
4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39,
BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON
42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-
AND RAYMUNDJORGE A. MERCADO, Respondents.
Laws as contained in the Report and Recommendation of the
Special Committee dated July 9, 2009 are hereby approved and
RESOLUTION adopted; and

MENDOZA, J.: 5. The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago Kapunan as


Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall continue, unless earlier
Subjects of this disposition are the: 1 Resolution Urgently revoked by the Court, but not to extend beyond June 30, 2011.
Requesting the Supreme Court to Issue Clarification on the
Query of Western Visayas IBP Governor Erwin M. Fortunato SO ORDERED.
Involving the Application of the Rotational Rule in the
Forthcoming Elections in his Region1 (IBP Resolution), filed by
In the December 14, 2010 Resolution, the Court once again
the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG); and the 2 Urgent Motion
upheld its Resolution in Bar Matter No. 586, dated May 16,
for Clarification with Prayer for Leave of Court to Admit Motion
1991, that the "rotation rule" under Sections 375 and 396 of the
and to Intervene and for the Issuance of a Temporary
IBP By-Laws should be strictly implemented, "so that all prior
Restraining Order2 (Urgent Motion) filed by Atty. Marven B.
elections for governor in the region shall be reckoned with or
Daquilanea (Atty. Daquilanea), immediate past president of the
considered in determining who should be the governor to be
IBP-Iloilo Chapter.
selected from the different chapters to represent the region in
the Board of Governors."7
The Court shall likewise act upon the Petition-in-
Intervention3 filed by the IBP-Southern Luzon Region, regarding
A motion for reconsideration was filed but it was denied by the
its qualification to field a candidate for the position of
Court in its Resolution, dated February 8, 2011.8
Executive Vice-President for the 2011-2013 term.

On April 15, 2011, Gov. Erwin M. Fortunato (Gov. Fortunato) of


Brief Statement of the Antecedents
IBP-Western Visayas Region wrote a letter9 to the IBP-BOG
seeking confirmation/clarification on whether "Capiz is the only
On December 14, 2010, the Court resolved the various Chapter in the IBP-Western Visayas Region eligible and
controversies persistently pestering the various IBP chapter qualified to run for Governor in the forthcoming election for
elections in a resolution,4 the dispositive portion of which reads: Governor."10

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves that: As the IBP-BOG was unable to reach a unanimous resolution on
the matter, it issued the subject IBP-Resolution, urgently
1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin M. requesting the Court to issue a clarification on the query of
Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors for the IBP-Western Visayas Region Gov. Fortunato involving the
Greater Manila Region, Western Visayas Region and Western application of the rotational rule for the next regional election.
Mindanao Region, respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are
UPHELD; On April 29, 2011, Atty. Daquilanea, the immediate past
president of the IBP-Iloilo Chapter, filed the subject Urgent
2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice President Motion likewise seeking clarification on the application of the
for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED to be held under rotational rule for the election of Governor for IBP-Western
the supervision of this Court within seven (7) days from receipt Visayas Region for the 2011-2013 term, specifically, whether
of this Resolution with Attys. Maramba, Fortunato and the IBP-Capiz Chapter would be the only chapter to be allowed
Marohomsalic being allowed to represent and vote as duly- to nominate candidates for said election.
elected Governors of their respective regions;
On May 3, 2011, upon filing of the subject Urgent Motion and election as it is debarred from serving again until the full cycle
the IBP-Resolution, then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona issued is completed.
a Temporary Restraining Order11 (TRO) suspending the election
for Governor of the IBP-Western Visayas Region and directing As can be gleaned from the records and all pleadings, there is
retired Justice Santiago M. Kapunan (Justice Kapunan), Officer- no dispute that the IBP-Western Visayas already completed a
in-Charge of the IBP and Gov. Fortunato of the IBP-Western full cycle with the election of Gov. Fortunato of Romblon for
Visayas Region to file their respective comments thereon. the 2009-2011 term. The first governor was Eugene Tan of the
IBP Capiz Chapter and, later, all chapters were able to serve as
On May 31, 2011, the TRO was confirmed nunc pro tunc by the governors.
Court En Banc.12
Thus, under the rotation by pre-ordained sequence, only
On May 17, 2011, the majority of the presidents of the various members of the IBP-Capiz Chapter may vie for Governor of the
chapters composing the IBP-Western Visayas Region filed their IBP-Western Visayas Region. Under the rotation by exclusion,
Respectful Comment-in-Intervention,13 praying for the lifting of every chapter in IBP-Western Visayas Region may compete
the TRO without prejudice to the resolution on the Urgent again.
Motion.
Resolution of the Court
In its Comment,14 dated June 2, 2011, the IBP-BOG, through
Justice Kapunan, presented the view that with the completion Re: IBP-Western Visayas Region
of a rotational cycle with the election of Gov. Fortunato
representing Romblon, "all chapters are deemed qualified to After an assiduous review of the facts, the issues and the
vie of the governorship for the 2011-2013 term without arguments raised by the parties involved, the Court finds
prejudice to the chapters entering into a consensus to adopt wisdom in the position of the IBP-BOG, through retired Justice
any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided Santiago M. Kapunan, that at the start of a new rotational cycle
each chapter will have its turn in the rotation."15 "all chapters are deemed qualified to vie of the governorship
for the 2011-2013 term without prejudice to the chapters
Like the IBP, Atty. Daquilanea espoused the view that upon the entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence
completion of a rotational cycle, elections should be open to all in the new rotation cycle provided each chapter will have its
chapters of the region subject to the exclusionary rule.16 turn in the rotation." Stated differently, the IBP-BOG
recommends the adoption of the rotation by exclusion scheme.
On June 23, 2011, the IBP-Capiz Chapter filed its Comment-in- The Court quotes with approval the reasons given by the IBP-
Intervention with Motion for Early Resolution,17 praying for a BOG on this score:
declaration that it was its turn to serve as Governor for IBP-
Western Visayas Region and moving for the early resolution of 6. After due deliberation, the Board of Governors agreed and
the controversy. resolved to recommend adherence to the principle of "rotation
by exclusion" based on the following reasons:
Issues for the Court’s Consideration
a) Election through ‘rotation by exclusion’ is the more
A reading of both the IBP-BOG Resolution and the Urgent established rule in the IBP. The rule prescribes that once a
Motion discloses that the respective movants are praying that member of the chapter is elected as Governor, his chapter
the Court determine whether at the start of a new rotational would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their
cycle, nominations for Governor of the IBP-Western Visayas turns in the rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a
Region are: a] once again open to all chapters subject to the fresh cycle commences, all the chapters in the region are once
rule on "rotation by exclusion"; or b] limited only to the chapter again entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation
first in the previous rotation cycle, following the previous by exclusion.
sequence or "rotation by pre-ordained sequence."
b) Election through a ‘rotation by exclusion’ allows for a more
The issue, therefore, in the IBP-Western Visayas Region is democratic election process. The rule provides for freedom of
whether, after the first cycle, the rotation rule will be the choice while upholding the equitable principle of rotation
rotation by pre-ordained sequence or rotation by exclusion. which assures the every member-chapter has its turn in every
The rotation by pre-ordained sequence is effected by the rotation cycle.
observance of the sequence of the service of the chapters in
the first cycle, which is very predictable. The rotation by c) On the other hand, rotation by pre-ordained sequence, or
exclusion is effected by the exclusion of a chapter who had election based on the same order as the previous cycle, tends
previously served until all chapters have taken their turns to to defeat the purpose of an election. The element of choice –
serve. It is not predictable as each chapter will have the chance which is crucial to a democratic process – is virtually removed.
to vie for the right to serve, but will have no right to a re- Only one chapter could vie for election at every turn as the
entire sequence, from first to last, is already predetermined by
the order in the previous rotation cycle. This concept of Vice-President. Since IBP-Eastern Mindanao, through now IBP
rotation by pre-ordained sequence negates freedom of choice, President Roan I. Libarios, was elected as the Executive Vice-
which is the bedrock of any democratic election process. President, it is only IBP-Western Visayas which is the only
region qualified to file a candidate for the 2011-2013 term;
d) The pronouncement of the Special Committee, which the
Supreme Court may have adopted in AM No. 09- 5-2-SC, 2] Section 2, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court allows for
involving the application of the rotation rule in the previous intervention only before the rendition of judgment; and
election for GMR may not be controlling, not being one of the
principal issues raised in the GMR elections. 3] Atty. Vinluan was actually able to serve his 2007-2009 term
as Executive Vice President even if he was later on disqualified
7. Thus, applying the principle of ‘rotation by exclusion’ in by the Court in December 14, 2010 Resolution.1âwphi1 To
Western Visayas which starts with a new rotation cycle, all allow IBP-Southern Luzon to vie for the position of Executive
chapters (with the exception of Romblon) are deemed qualified Vice President of the IBP for the 2011-2013 term would allow
to vie for the Governorship for 2011-2013 term without said chapter to serve twice as Executive Vice President since
prejudice to the chapters entering into a consensus to adopt Atty. Raul R. Angangco of IBP Southern Luzon had already
any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided served as Executive Vice President for the 1995-1997 term.
each chapter will have its turn in the rotation.18
The Court finds merit in the contentions of both parties, and
The Court takes notice of the predictability of the rotation by thus believes that the IBP-BOG should be given its say on the
succession scheme. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme, matter pursuant to the dictates of due process.
the elections would be more genuine as the opportunity to
serve as Governor at any time is once again open to all WHEREFORE, the Court hereby holds that in the IBP-Western
chapters, unless, of course, a chapter has already served in the Visayas Region, the rotation by exclusion shall be adopted such
new cycle. While predictability is not altogether avoided, as in that, initially, all chapters of the region shall have the equal
the case where only one chapter remains in the cycle, still, as opportunity to vie for the position of Governor for the next
previously noted by the Court "the rotation rule should be cycle except Romblon.
applied in harmony with, and not in derogation of, the
sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the The Temporary Restraining Order dated May 3, 201 1 is hereby
ballot."19 lifted and the IBP-Western Visayas Region is hereby ordered to
proceed with its election of Goven10r for the 2011-2013 term
Thus, as applied in the IBP-Western Visayas Region, initially, all pursuant to the rotation by exclusion rule.
the chapters shall have the equal opportunity to vie for the
position of Governor for the next cycle except Romblon, so as The IBP Board of Governors is hereby ordered to file its
no chapter shall serve consecutively. Every winner shall then be comment on the Petition for Intervention of IBP-Southern
excluded after its term. Romblon then joins the succeeding Luzon, within ten ( l 0) days from receipt hereof.
elections after the first winner in the cycle.

SO ORDERED.
Re: Query by IBP-Southern Luzon

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA


On July 27, 2012, the IBP-Southern Luzon Region filed its Associate Justice
Petition for Intervention,20 seeking a declaration that it was
qualified to nominate a candidate for the position of Executive
Vice-President for the 2011-2013 term. It argued that since the
Court removed its member, Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, as IBP
Executive Vice-President for the 2007-2009 term, it should not
now be prejudiced and disallowed to vie for the position of
Executive Vice-President of the IBP for the 2011-2013 term. To
do so would be a violation of the rotational system and the
principle of equal rotation among the different regions to lead
the IBP.

On September 21, 2012, Gov. Fortunato filed an Ex Abundanti


Ad Cautelam Vigorous Opposition/Comment,21 opposing the
position of the IBP-Southern Luzon on the ground that:

1] in its December 14, 2010 Resolution, the Court found that it


was only the IBP-Western Visayas chapter and the IBP-Eastern
Mindanao chapter that had yet to have their turns as Executive
WE CONCUR:
Footnotes
(On Leave)
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO* * On Leave.
Chief Justice ** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. !384 dated
December 4, 2012.
1 Rollo, pp. 3281-3285.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO** PRESBITERO J. 2 Id. at 3259-3268.

Associate Justice VELASCO, JR. 3 Id. at 3454-3460.

Acting Chief Justice Associate Justice 4 Id. at 2998-3026.

5 Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar

TERESITA J. LEONARDO- of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors


ARTURO D. BRION consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as
DE CASTRO
Associate Justice delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the
Associate Justice
representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be
elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
region only. The position of Governor should be rotated
Associate Justice Associate Justice
among the different Chapters in the region. (As amended
pursuant to the Resolution of the Court dated December 14,
MARIANO C. DEL 2010.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
CASTILLO 6 Sec. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. – At least
Associate Justice
Associate Justice one (1) month before the national convention, the delegates
from each region shall elect the Governor for their region, who
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, shall be chosen by rotation which is mandatory and shall be
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ strictly implemented among the Chapters in the region. When
JR.
Associate Justice a Chapter waives its turn in the rotation order, its place shall
Associate Justice
redound to the next Chapter in the line. Nevertheless, the
former may reclaim its right to the Governorship at any time
ESTELA M. PERLAS- before the rotation is completed; otherwise, it will have to wait
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
BERNABE for its turn in the next round, in the same place that it had in
Associate Justice
Associate Justice the round completed.
7
Id. at 3014-3015.
8 Id. at 3240-3242.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN 9 Id. at 3287-3289.
Associate Justice 10 Id. at 3289.

11 Id. at 3243-3246.

12 Id. at 3315-3317.

13 Id. at 3309-3314.
14 Id. at 3325-3329.

15 Id. at 3328.

16 Id. at 3318-3323.
17 Id. at 3339-3348.
18 Id. at 3327-3328.

19 Resolution dated December 14, 2010, p. 22.

20 Rollo, pp. 3454-3456.

21
Id. at 3480-3500.
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC April 11, 2013 governors of the IBP-BOG are, in turn, elected by the House of
Delegates which consists of members duly apportioned among
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE the chapters of each region.5
ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRA TED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES. At the helm of the IBP is the IBP National President (IBP-
President),6 who is automatically succeeded by the EVP. When
x-----------------------x the Philippine Bar was first integrated, both the IBP-President
and the EVP were elected by the IBP-BOG from among
A.C. No. 8292 themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar,7 with
the right of automatic succession by the EVP to the presidency
for the next succeeding full term. The presidency rotated
ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA
among all the nine regions in such order as the IBP-BOG had
and NASSER MARAHOMSALIC, Complainants,
prescribed.8 Both the IBP-President and the EVP held a term of
vs.
one (1) year, with the presidency rotating from year to year
ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA,
among the regions.9
BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON,
and REYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, Respondents.
On November 1, 1974, the IBP By-Laws took effect, providing
that the IBP-President and the EVP be chosen by the Board of
RESOLUTION
Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as
practicable, on a rotation basis.10 It was also provided that the
MENDOZA, J.: IBP-President and the EVP hold office for a term of two (2)
years from July 1 following their election until June 30 of their
The Court, exercising its power of supervision over the second year in office and until their successors shall have been
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), resolves this matter of duly chosen and qualified.11
the election of the Executive Vice-President (EVP) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the 2011-2013 term. Later, several amendments in the IBP By-Laws were introduced,
among which were the provisions relating to the election of its
This administrative matter was triggered by the Petition for national officers. In Bar Matter No. 287, dated July 9, 1985, the
Intervention filed by petitioner-intervenor IBP-Southern Luzon Court approved the recommendation allowing the IBP-
Region (IBP-Southern Luzon), seeking a declaration that the President, the EVP and the officers of the House of Delegates
post of EVP-IBP for the 2011-2013 term be held open to all to be directly elected by the House of Delegates.12
regions and that it is qualified to field a candidate for the said
position. Unfortunately, history recalls that this mode of electing the IBP
national officers was marred with unethical politicking,
This matter comes at the heels of the controversies resolved by electioneering and other distasteful practices. Thus, on October
the Court in its December 4, 2012 Resolution regarding the 6, 1989, the Court in Bar Matter No. 491, dated October 6,
application of the rotation rule in determining which chapter of 1989, ordered: 1] the annulment of the just concluded national
the IBP-Western Visayas region (IBP-Western Visayas) was elections; 2] the abolition of the system of election of national
qualified to field a candidate for the position of governor. In officers by direct action of the House of Delegates; 3] the
the said resolution, the Court clarified that the rotation rule was restoration of the former system of having the IBP-President
one by exclusion. Similar to this recently resolved controversy, and the EVP elected by the IBP-BOG from among themselves,
the present dilemma calls for the application of the rotation with right of succession by the EVP to the presidency and
system at the national level. subject to the rule that "the position of Executive Vice President
of the IBP shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions;"13 4]
The Factual Antecedents the holding of special elections for the election of the first set
of IBP-President and EVP;14 and 5] the appointment of a
To understand the nature of the controversy and the issues caretaker board to administer the affairs of the IBP pending the
presented for resolution, an examination of the structure of the holding of special elections.15
IBP and its history is in order.
In the same Bar Matter No. 491, the Court ordered the
In 1973, the Philippine Bar was integrated1 to elevate the amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-laws, to
standards of the legal profession, to improve the read:
administration of justice and to enable it to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.2 Governing the IBP was the IBP SEC. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the
Board of Governors (IBP-BOG), consisting of the governors Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President
from each of the nine (9) geographic regions of the to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9)
archipelago,3 namely: Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis.
Luzon, Greater Manila, Bicolandia, Eastern Visayas, Western The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their
Visayas, Eastern Mindanao, and Western Mindanao.4 The respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the In 2009, however, the national and regional IBP elections were
President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant again tainted with numerous controversies, which were
to Bar Matter No. 491) resolved by the Court in its December 14, 2010 Resolution,19 in
the following manner:
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become
President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves that:
rotate among the nine Regions.16 [Emphasis supplied]
1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin
Following the rotation system just ordered, the following M. Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as
individuals representing the different regions of the IBP served Governors for the Greater Manila Region, Western
as IBP-President: Visayas Region and Western Mindanao Region,
respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are UPHELD;

1. Eugene Tan Western January 28, 1990-


2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice
(Capiz) Visayas April 199117
President for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED
2. Numeriano Central Luzon April 1991-June 30, to be held under the supervision of this Court within
Tanopo, Jr. 1991 seven (7) days from receipt of this Resolution with
(Pangasinan) Attys. Maramba, Fortunato and Marohomsalic being
allowed to represent and vote as duly-elected
3. Mervin Encanto Greater Manila 1993-1995 Governors of their respective regions;
(Quezon City)
3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio
4. Raoul R. Southern 1995-1997
Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund
Angangco Luzon
Mercado are all found GUILTY of grave professional
(Makati)
misconduct arising from their actuations in connection
5. Jose Aguila Eastern Visayas 1997-1999 with the controversies in the elections in the IBP last
Grapilon April 25, 2009 and May 9, 2009 and are hereby
(Biliran) disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any
subsequent election. While their elections as
6. Arthur Lim Western 1999-2001 Governors for the term 2007-2009 can no longer be
(Zambasulta) Mindanao annulled as this has already expired, Atty. Vinluan is
declared unfit to hold the position of IBP Executive
7. Teofilo Pilando, Jr. Northern 2001-2003 Vice President for the 2007-2009 term and, therefore,
(Kalinga Apayao) Luzon barred from succeeding as IBP President for the 2009-
2011 term;
8. Jose Anselmo Bicolandia 2003-2005
Cadiz
(Camarines Sur) 4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33,
par. (g), 39, 42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47,
Article VII of the IBP By-Laws as contained in the
On January 27, 1999, in Velez v. de Vera,18 reasoning that the Report and Recommendation of the Special
rotation system applied only to the EVP, the Court considered Committee, dated July 9, 2009, are hereby approved
the election of then EVP Leonard De Vera (De Vera), and adopted; and
representing the Eastern Mindanao region, as one completing
the first rotational cycle and affirmed the election of Jose 5. The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago
Vicente B. Salazar (Salazar) of the Bicolandia region as EVP. The Kapunan as Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall
Court explained that the rotational cycle would have been continue, unless earlier revoked by the Court, but not
completed with the succession of EVP De Vera, representing to extend beyond June 30, 2011.
Eastern Mindanao as IBP-President. For having
misappropriated his clients’ funds and committing acts inimical SO ORDERED.
to the IBP-BOG and the IBP in general, De Vera was removed as
governor of Eastern Mindanao and as EVP, and his removal was
Attempts to seek reconsideration of the Court’s resolution were
affirmed by the Court.
denied by the Court in its Resolution, dated February 8, 2011. 20

Thus, Salazar became IBP-President for the 2005-2007 term


Despite Bar Matter No. 491 and Velez,21 which recognized the
with Feliciano Bautista (Bautista) of Central Luzon as EVP. The
operational fact that the rotation was from the position of
term of Salazar was the start of the second rotational cycle.
President to that of the EVP, Section 47 was not immediately
Bautista eventually succeeded to the IBP presidency with Atty.
amended to reflect the official position of the Court. It was only
Rogelio Vinluan (Vinluan) as his EVP.
amended through the December 14, 2010 Resolution.22 Section In the December 4, 2012 Resolution, the Court deferred its
47 of the IBP By-Laws now reads: action on the intervention sought by the IBP-Southern Luzon
and required the IBP-BOG to submit its comment.28
Sec. 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President, In its Comment, dated January 2, 2013, the IBP-BOG prayed
and nine (9) regional Governors. The Executive Vice President that the "IBP-Southern Luzon be allowed to nominate a
shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of candidate for EVP for the 2011-2013 term, without prejudice to
Governors from among themselves, by the vote of at least five the right of other regions except IBP-Eastern Mindanao, to do
(5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President the same."29
for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors. The opposition of Fortunato to the subject petition in
intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon was joined by his successor,
The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be Marlou B. Ubano (Ubano), Gov. Manuel L. Enage, Jr. of IBP-
penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of Eastern Visayas,30 and the members of the House of Delegates
the offender from election or appointment to any office in the of IBP-Western Visayas.31 Nasser A. Marohomsalic
IBP. (Marohomsalic), one of the original parties in this case, Gov.
32

Leonor Gernoa-Romeo33 of IBP-Bicolandia, and the IBP-


In the special elections that were held thereafter, Roan I. BOG34 likewise filed their respective comments.
Libarios (Libarios), representing IBP-Eastern Mindanao Region,
was elected EVP and he later on succeeded as president. Position of IBP-Southern Luzon

On April 27, 2011, the IBP-BOG, acting on the letter of then In support of its bid to qualify in the election for EVP for the
Gov. Erwin M. Fortunato (Fortunato) of IBP-Western Visayas 2011-2013 term, IBP-Southern Luzon takes the following
requested that the Court provide guidance on how it would positions:
proceed with the application of the rotational rule in the
regional elections for governor of IBP-Western Visayas.23 ● In view of the Court’s resolution to bar its representative,
Vinluan, from succeeding as IBP-President for the 2009-2011
On December 4, 2012, the Court issued a term, the IBP-Southern Luzon was effectively deprived of its
resolution24 addressing the issues with respect to the election right to the IBP presidency.35
of governor for IBP-Western Visayas. In clarifying that the
rotational rule was one by exclusion, the Court explained that ● With the election of Eugene A. Tan as IBP-President (January
in the election of governor of a region, all chapters of the 29, 1990-April 1991), IBP-Western Visayas should no longer be
region should be given the opportunity to have their nominees allowed to field a candidate in the forthcoming election for
elected as governor, to the exclusion of those chapters that EVP.36
had already served in the rotational cycle. Once a rotational
cycle would be completed, all chapters of a region, except the ● As he was just elected on January 5, 2013, Ubano cannot be
chapter which won in the immediately preceding elections, considered qualified to seek the position of EVP cum IBP-
could once again have the equal opportunity to vie for the President due to his lack of experience.37
position of governor of their region. The chapter that won in
the immediately preceding election, under the rotational cycle
Position of IBP-Western Visayas
just completed, could only vie for the position of governor after
the election of the first governor in the new cycle.
For its part, IBP-Western Visayas advances the following
arguments in support of its position that it is the only region
The Current Controversy
qualified to field a candidate for EVP for the 2011-2013 term:

Earlier, on July 27, 2012, IBP-Southern Luzon filed its Motion for
● The Petition in Intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon should
Leave to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Petition In
not be entertained as it would be contrary to Section 2, Rule
Intervention25 and the subject Petition In
19, it being filed following the finality of the December 14,
Intervention,26 seeking a declaration that the post of EVP for
2010 Resolution of the Court.38
the 2011-2013 term be held open to all regions and that it be
qualified to nominate a candidate for the position of EVP for
the 2011-2013 term. ● With the term of current IBP-President Libarios coming to an
end, IBP-Western Visayas is the only region left qualified to
field a candidate for EVP, pursuant to the December 14, 2010
The Petition in Intervention was, in turn, opposed by
Resolution of the Court.39
Fortunato,27 who insisted that IBP-Western Visayas was the
only region that could vie for the position of EVP for the 2011-
2013 term. ● The IBP Southern Luzon had already taken its turn in the
rotation system following the election of Vinluan as EVP (2007-
2009) and Raoul R. Angangco (Angangco) who also served as could transfer to a higher position. In Petition for Judicial
EVP during the 1995-1997 term.401âwphi1 Clemency of Judge Irma Zita v. Masamayor,45 the respondent
was given judicial clemency for her past administrative offenses
● The election of Eugene Tan cannot be considered as part of so she could apply for a lateral transfer.
the current rotation as he was elected following the special
elections held as a result of the October 6, 1989 Resolution of At any rate, granting that technical rules are strictly applied in
the Court. administrative matters, the Court can exercise its power and
prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case
Synthesized, the core issues that must be addressed for the from their operation if and when justice requires it. "The power
resolution of the Court are the following: to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so
pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court
A. Whether the motion for intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon itself had already declared final."46
can be allowed and admitted.
The First Rotational Cycle Already Completed
B. Whether the first rotational cycle was completed with the
election of Atty. Leonard De Vera. As earlier recited, Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws was amended
in the December 14, 2010 Resolution47 of the Court to read as
C. Whether IBP-Southern Luzon has already served in the follows:
current rotation.
Sec. 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the
D. Whether the IBP-Western Visayas has already served in the Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President,
current rotation. and nine (9) regional Governors. The Executive Vice President
shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of
Governors from among themselves, by the vote of at least five
The Motion for Intervention Should be Allowed and
(5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President
Admitted
for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors.
There is no dispute that the Constitution has empowered the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning "the integrated
The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be
bar."41 Pursuant thereto, the Court wields a continuing power
penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of
of supervision over the IBP and its affairs like the elections of its
the offender from election or appointment to any office in the
officers. The current controversy has been precipitated by the
IBP.
petition in intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon, praying that the
election of the EVP for the 2011-2013 term be opened to all
and that it be considered as qualified to field a candidate for From the above, it is clear that the amendment was effected to
the said position. underscore the shift of the rotation from the position of
president to that of EVP. The purpose of the system being to
ensure that all the regions will have an equal opportunity to
In the exercise of its continuing supervisory power, the Court is
serve as EVP and then automatically succeed as president.
allowing the matter to be raised as an issue because it has not
yet been squarely settled, as will be pointed out later
on.1âwphi1 Moreover, it is not only an exercise of its As previously mentioned, in Velez,48 the Court stated that the
constitutional and statutory mandated duty, but also of its rotation system applies to the election of the EVP only and
symbolic function of providing guiding principles, precepts and considered the service of then EVP De Vera, representing the
doctrines42 for the purpose of steering the members of the Eastern Mindanao region, as having completed the first
bench and the bar to the proper path. rotational cycle. For said reason, the Court affirmed the election
of Salazar of Bicolandia as EVP. The Court explained that the
rotation cycle with respect to the presidency would have been
It should be noted that this is merely an administrative
completed with the succession of EVP De Vera as IBP-President.
matter, a bar matter to be specific, where technical rules are
The specific words used in Velez49 were:
not strictly applied. In fact, in administrative cases, there is no
rule regarding entry of judgment. Where there is no entry of
judgment, finality and immutability do not come into play. On In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP
several occasions, the Court has re-opened administrative cases which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors.
and modified its decisions that had long attained finality in the The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of
interest of justice. A recent example is Talens-Dabon v. Judge the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency.
Arceo,43 where the Court lifted the ban against the Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of
disqualification of the respondent from re-employment in IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the
government. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in
for Clemency,44 the Court granted clemency so the respondent Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws.
In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with In arriving at its December 14, 2010 Resolution,52 the Court
since upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the then was confronted with limited issues. Among those were: 1]
nine IBP regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the the validity of the election of Nasser A. Marohomsalic as
rotation was completed. It is only unfortunate that the governor of the IBP-Western Mindanao Region; 2] the validity
supervening event of Atty. de Vera's removal as IBP Governor of the election of Manuel M. Maramba as governor for the
and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP Greater Manila Region for the term 2009-2011; 3] the validity
Presidency. The fact remains, however, that the rotation rule of the election of Erwin M. Fortunato as governor for Western
had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. de Visayas Region for the term 2009-2011; and 4] the validity of
Vera to the IBP Presidency. the elections for EVP for the 2009-2011 term presided by then
IBP-President Bautista. The four issues were intertwined since
The notion that the ruling in Velez50 should not be considered the validity of the elections presided by IBP-President Bautista
at all by the Court because it is barred by the Omnibus Motion was questioned on the alleged lack of quorum, as it was
Rule deserves scant consideration. It may have been earlier attended by Marohomsalic, whose own election was then also
overlooked, but the Court is not barred from motu propio being questioned.
taking judicial notice of such judicial pronouncement, pursuant
to its continuing supervisory powers over the IBP. With those limited issues resolved, the Court directed that
special elections should be held for the election of EVP for the
The Second Rotational Cycle remaining 2009-2011 term "to heal the divisions in the IBP and
promote unity by enabling all the nine (9) governors-elect to
While there may have been no categorical pronouncement in elect the EVP in a unified meeting called for that purpose."53 In
Velez that the second rotational cycle started with the election ordering the special elections to be conducted, the Court took
of Salazar as EVP, it cannot be denied that it was so. With the into account the report of the Special Committee as follows:
Velez declaration that the election of De Vera as EVP
completed the first cycle, there can be no other consequence The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee
except that the term of EVP Salazar commenced a new by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
rotational cycle. From the records, it appears that the following following regions were President of the IBP during the past
had already served as EVP in the Second Rotational Cycle: nine (9) terms (1991-2009):

Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan) --- Central Luzon -------


1. Jose Vicente Salazar Bicolandia 2005
1991-1993
2. Feliciano M. Bautista Central Luzon 2005-2007
Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon City) -------- Manila ---------------
3. Rogelio Vinluan Southern Luzon 2007-2009 1993-1995

4. Roan L. Libarios Eastern Mindanao 2009-2011


Raoul R. Angangco (Makati) ------------- Southern Luzon -----
1995-1997
As there were only four (4) regions which had served as EVP,
there are still five (5) other regions which have not yet so Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran) ----------- Eastern Visayas ----–
served. These regions are: 1997-1999

1. Northern Luzon Arthur D. Lim (Zambasulta) ------------- Western Mindanao--


2. Greater Manila Area 1999-2001
3. Eastern Visayas
4. Western Visayas Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga-Apayao)-Northern Luzon –---
5. Western Mindanao 2001-2003

Needless to state, Western Visayas is not the only region that Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) –Bicolandia ----------
can vie for EVP for the 2011-2013 term. This answers the query 2003-2005
of Fortunato.
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) –Bicolandia -----2005-
With respect to IBP-Southern Luzon, following the ruling in Aug 2006
Velez,51 it is clear that it already had its turn to serve as EVP in
the Second Rotational Cycle. Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Albay) ---------- Bicolandia ---- Aug.
2006-2007

Feliciano M. Bautista (Pangasinan) ----- Central Luzon ------


The Special Committee failed to take into account the Velez 2007-2009
ruling
Only the governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern Western Visayas counters that his election could not be
Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice considered as part of the current rotation as he was elected
President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and following the special elections held as a result of the October 6,
Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already. 1989 Resolution of the Court. It has also been argued that he
merely served as Interim President.
Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,
or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be As Velez60 declared that the election of EVP De Vera completed
elected as Executive Vice-President for the 2009-2011 term. the first rotational cycle, it could only mean that all regions had
The one who is not chosen for this term, shall have his turn in their respective turns in the first rotational cycle. Thus, in this
the next (2011-2013) term. Afterwards, another rotation shall second rotational cycle, issues as to the nature of his election
commence with Greater Manila in the lead, followed by and service as IBP-President during the First Rotational Cycle
Southern Luzon, Eastern Visayas, Western Mindanao, Northern are inconsequential.
Luzon, Bicolandia, Central Luzon, and either Western Visayas or
Eastern Mindanao at the end of the round.54 At any rate, Eugene Tan could not be considered as an interim
president. It was Justice Felix Antonio who was designated by
Apparently, the report of the Special Committee failed to take the Court as Interim Caretaker until the election of the IBP-
into account the ruling in Velez55 that the service of then EVP President by the elected IBP-BOG. The election of the new
Leonard De Vera, representing the Eastern Mindanao region, President and Executive Vice-President was directed by the
completed the first rotational cycle. Court itself and in no way can it be said that they served on an
interim basis. Besides, at that time, under Section 47, the
Thus, it committed two inaccuracies. First, it erroneously rotation concerned the presidency only. Section 47 was
reported that "only the governors of the Western Visayas and ordered to be amended only in the December 14, 2010
Eastern Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Resolution,61 despite Bar Matter No. 491 and Velez,62 which
Executive Vice President." Second, it erroneously considered recognized the operational fact that the rotation was from the
Central Luzon and Bicolandia as having had two terms each in position of President to that of EVP.
the First Rotational Cycle, when their second services were for
the Second Rotational Cycle. If Eugene Tan served only up to April, 1991, it was not because
he served merely in the interim. He served up to that time only
The unfortunate fact, however, is that the erroneous statements because he resigned. As reflected in Bar Matter No. 565,
of the Special Committee were used as bases for the dated October 15, 1991, Tan resigned as IBP-President when he
recommendation that "either the governor of the Western was charged by several staff members of the IBP in a letter-
Visayas Region, or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao complaint to the Chief Justice, with favoritism or discrimination
Region should be elected as Executive Vice-President for the in the hiring of officers and employees in the IBP and with
2009-2011 term." extravagant and irregular expenditure of IBP funds. The Court
found the acts of Eugene Tan as constituting grave abuse of
Worse, they were cited by IBP-Western Visayas as bases to authority and serious misconduct in office, which would have
oppose the Petition in Intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon, warranted his removal from office. Considering that he had
arguing that it would be contrary to Section 2, Rule 19, it being earlier tendered his resignation as IBP-President and his term
filed following the finality of the December 14, 2010 of office already expired on June 30, 1991, the Court imposed
Resolution56 of the Court. on him the penalty of severe censure only.63

At any rate, the statement of the Court in its December 14, Moreover, in A.M. No. 491, the Court stressed that: "One who
2010 Resolution57 that "only the governors of the Western has served as President of the IBP may not run for election as
Visayas and Eastern Mindanao regions have not yet had their EVP-IBP in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the
turn as Executive Vice President," did not pertain to the lis mota presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have completed;
of the case. Thus, it did not settle anything so as to be deemed whereupon the rotation shall begin anew."
a precedent-setting ruling. Those statements, therefore, could
not be considered as overturning, vacating and setting aside Rotation by Exclusion
the ruling in Velez58 that the service of then EVP De
Vera completed the first rotational cycle. As clarified in the December 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court,
the rotation should be by exclusion. In said resolution, it was
The election of Eugene Tan As IBP President stated:

Much has been said about the election of Eugene Tan as IBP- Resolution of the Court
President. IBP-Southern Luzon argues that with his election and
service as IBP-President from January 29, 1990 to April 1991, Re: IBP-Western Visayas Region
the IBP-Western Visayas should no longer be allowed to field a
candidate in the forthcoming elections for the EVP.59 IBP-
After an assiduous review of the facts, the issues and the the elections would be more genuine as the opportunity to
arguments raised by the parties involved, the Court finds serve as Governor at any time is once again open to all
wisdom in the position of the IBP-BOG, through retired Justice chapters, unless, of course, a chapter has already served in the
Santiago M. Kapunan, that at the start of a new rotational cycle new cycle. While predictability is not altogether avoided, as in
"all chapters are deemed qualified to vie for the governorship the case where only one chapter remains in the cycle, still, as
for the 2011-2013 term without prejudice to the chapters previously noted by the Court "the rotation rule should be
entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence applied in harmony with, and not in derogation of, the
in the new rotation cycle provided each chapter will have its sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the
turn in the rotation." Stated differently, the IBP-BOG ballot."
recommends the adoption of the rotation by exclusion scheme.
The Court quotes with approval the reasons given by the IBP- Thus, as applied in the IBP-Western Visayas Region, initially, all
BOG on this score: the chapters shall have the equal opportunity to vie for the
position of Governor for the next cycle except Romblon, so as
6. After due deliberation, the Board of Governors agreed and no chapter shall serve consecutively. Every winner shall then be
resolved to recommend adherence to the principle of "rotation excluded after its term. Romblon then joins the succeeding
by exclusion" based on the following reasons: elections after the first winner in the cycle.64

a) Election through "rotation by exclusion" is the more As stated therein, it would be without prejudice to the regions
established rule in the IBP. The rule prescribes that once a entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence
member of the chapter is elected as Governor, his chapter in the new rotation cycle, provided each region would have its
would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their turn in the rotation.
turns in the rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a
fresh cycle commences, all the chapters in the region are once As noted by the Court in its December 4, 2012 Resolution,
again entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation there is a sense of predictability in the rotation by the pre-
by exclusion. ordained scheme. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme,
the elections will be more genuine, as the opportunity to serve
b) Election through a "rotation by exclusion" allows for a more at any time is once again open to all, unless, of course, a region
democratic election process. The rule provides for freedom of has already served in the new cycle. While predictability is not
choice while upholding the equitable principle of rotation altogether avoided, as in the case where only one region
which assures that every member-chapter has its turn in every remains in the cycle, still, as previously noted by the Court "the
rotation cycle. rotation rule should be applied in harmony with, and not in
derogation of, the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed
c) On the other hand, rotation by pre-ordained sequence, or through the ballot."65
election based on the same order as the previous cycle, tends
to defeat the purpose of an election. The element of choice – The December 14, 2010 Resolution
which is crucial to a democratic process – is virtually removed.
Only one chapter could vie for election at every turn as the That the Court, in its December 14, 2010 Resolution,66 ordered
entire sequence, from first to last, is already predetermined by the election of the EVP-IBP for the next term based on the
the order in the previous rotation cycle. This concept of inaccurate report of the Special Committee, is a fact. That
rotation by pre-ordained sequence negates freedom of choice, cannot be erased. As a consequence thereof, Libarios of IBP-
which is the bedrock of any democratic election process. Eastern Mindanao is now the IBP President. He, however, is part
of the second rotational cycle because 1] in Velez67 it was
d) The pronouncement of the Special Committee, which the categorically ruled that the service of then EVP De Vera,
Supreme Court may have adopted in AM No. 09-5-2-SC, representing the Eastern Mindanao region, completed the
involving the application of the rotation rule in the previous first rotational cycle; and 2] he could not be part of the first
election for GMR may not be controlling, not being one of the rotational cycle because EVP de Vera of the same region had
principal issues raised in the GMR elections. already been elected as such.

7. Thus, applying the principle of ‘rotation by exclusion’ in It is to be noted that in the December 14, 2010
Western Visayas which starts with a new rotation cycle, all Resolution,68 the Court did not categorically overturn the ruling
chapters (with the exception of Romblon) are deemed qualified in Velez.69 It merely directed the election of the next EVP,
to vie for the Governorship for 2011-2013 term without without any reference to any rotational cycle.
prejudice to the chapters entering into a consensus to adopt
any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided To declare that the first rotational cycle as not yet completed
each chapter will have its turn in the rotation. will cause more confusion than solution. In fact, it has spawned
this current controversy. To consider the service of current
The Court takes notice of the predictability of the rotation by president, Libarios, as part of the first rotational cycle would
succession scheme. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme, completely ignore the ruling in Velez.70
The Best Option: Open to All Regions representative has just served the immediately preceding term,
may be elected for another term as Executive Vice-President in
How then do we treat the turns of those who had already the new rotational cycle. The region whose representative
served in the second rotational cycle? Shall we treat them as served last in the previous rotational cycle may be elected
anomalies? As aberrant developments, as Justice Brion puts it? Executive Vice-President only after the first term of the new
rotational cycle ends, subject once more to the rule on
A remedy is to reconcile the conflicting decisions and exclusion.
resolutions with nothing in mind but the best interest of the
IBP. It appears from the pleadings, however, that the The order of rotation by exclusion shall be without prejudice to
differences are irresoluble. the regions entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-
ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided each
To avoid the endless conflicts, confusions and controversies region will have its turn in the rotation.
which have been irritably plaguing the IBP, the solution is to
start another rotational round, a new cycle, open to all A violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be
regions. At any rate, all regions, after the election of Libarios, penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of
would be considered as already having its turn in the the offender from election or appointment to any office in the
presidency. This is not to detract from the fact that under IBP.
Section 47, as amended, and from the pertinent rulings, the
position of EVP-IBP is the one being actually rotated, but as SEC. 49. Terms of office. - The President and the Executive Vice-
stated in the December 14, 2010 Resolution,71 it will enable the President shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1
IBP "to start on a clean and correct slate, free from the following their election until June 30 of their second year in
politicking and the under handed tactics that have office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen
characterized the IBP elections for so long." and qualified.

Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws should be further amended In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his
functions and duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice
Whatever the decision of the Court may be, to prevent future President, and in the event of the death, resignation, or
wranglings and guide the IBP in their future course of action, removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall
Section 47 and Section 49 of the IBP By-laws should again be serve as Acting President for the unexpired portion of the term.
amended. Stress should be placed on the automatic succession His tenure as such shall not be considered a new turn in the
of the EVP to the position of the president. Surprisingly, the rotation.
automatic succession does not appear in present Section 47, as
ordered amended by the Court in the December 14, 2010 In the event of death, resignation, removal or disability of the
Resolution. It should be restored. Accordingly, Section 47 and Executive Vice President, the Board of Directors shall elect
Section 49, Article VII, are recommended to read as follows: among the regions qualified to be elected as Executive Vice
President to serve the unexpired portion of the term or period
Sec. 47. Election of National President Executive Vice President. of disability.
– The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President,
an Executive Vice President, and nine (9) regional Governors. In the event of the death, resignation, removal or disability of
The Governors shall be ex-officio Vice President for their both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board
respective regions. of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office for
the unexpired portion of the term or during the period of
The Board of Governors shall elect the President and Executive disability. Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws, all other
Vice President from among themselves each by a vote of at officers and employees appointed by the President with the
least five (5) Governors. Upon expiration of the term of the consent of the Board shall hold office at the pleasure of the
President, the Executive Vice-President shall automatically Board or for such term as the Board may fix.
succeed as President.
u>Creation of a permanent Committee for IBP Affairs
Each region, as enumerated under Section 3, Rule 139-A of the
Rules of Court, shall have the opportunity to have its To further avoid conflicting and confusing rulings in the various
representative elected as Executive Vice-President, provided IBP cases like what happened to this one, the December
that, the election for the position of Executive Vice President 14,2010 Resolution and Velez,72 it is recommended that the
shall be on a strict rotation by exclusion basis. A region, whose Court create a committee for IBP affairs to primarily attend to
representative has just been elected as Executive Vice the problems and needs of a very important professional body
President, can no longer have its representative elected for the and to make recommendation for its improvement and
same position in subsequent elections until after all regions strengthening.
have had the opportunity to be elected as such. At the end of
the rotational cycle, all regions, except the region whose WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to:
1] GRANT the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit the reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
Attached Petition In Intervention; writer of the opinion of the Court.

2] DECLARE that the election for the position of the EVP for the MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
2011-2013 term be open to all regions. Chief Justice

3] AMEND Section 47 and Section 49, Article VII of the IBP By- Footnotes
Laws to read as recommended in the body of this disposition.
* No part.
1 http://www.ibp.ph/history.html (Last visited March 6, 2013).
4] CREATE a permanent Committee for IBP Affairs.
2 http://www.ibp.ph/mission.html (Last visited March 6, 2013).

3 IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Sec. 47; see also Section 7, Rule 139-A.
SO ORDERED.
4 Section 37, IBP By-Laws in relation to Section 3, Rule 139-A.
5 Section 6, Rule 139-A.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
6 IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Sec. 50.
Associate Justice
7 Section 7, Rule 139-A.

8 Id.
WE CONCUR: 9 Id.

10 IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Section 47.


MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO 11 IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Section 50.
Chief Justice 12 See Bar Matter No. 491, p. 31.
13 Id. at 32.

14 Id. at 34-35.
PRESBITERO J. 15 Id. at 35.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
VELASCO, JR. 16 http://www.ibp.ph/d03.html.(Last visited: March 9, 2013).
Associate Justice
Associate Justice 17 Resigned as IBP-President following charges of favoritism

and discrimination; see In The Matter of the Petition to Remove


TERESITA J. LEONARDO- Atty. Jose A. Grapilon as President, Integrated Bar of the
ARTURO D. BRION
DE CASTRO Philippines, A.C. No. 4826, January 27, 1999
Associate Justice
Associate Justice (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/ac_4826.h
tm; last visited March 29, 2013).
18 528 Phil. 783, 810-812 (2006).
(No part)
19 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026.
DISODADO M. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
20 Id. at 3240-3242.
PERALTA* Associate Justice
21 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18.
Associate Justice
22 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026.

23 Id. at 3282-3286.
MARIANO C. DEL 24 Id. at 3522-3532.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
CASTILLO 25 Id. at 3450-3453.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice 26 Id. at 3454-3460.

27 Id. at 3475-3486.
28 Id. at 3531.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ 29 Rollo, p. 3608
JR.
Associate Justice 30 Id. at 3587-3596.
Associate Justice
31 Id. at 3572-3584.

32 Id. at 3544-3553.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-
BIENVENIDO L. REYES 33 Id. at 3599-3602.
BERNABE
Associate Justice 34 Id. at 3607-3613.
Associate Justice 35 Id. at 3455.

36 Id. at 3616-3617.
37 Id. at 3620-3622.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN 38 Id. at 3490.
Associate Justice 39 Id. at 3492-3493.

40 Id. at 3493-3494.
CERTIFICATION 41 Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

42 Salonga v. Pano, 219 Phil. 402 (1985).

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby 43 A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, November 20, 2012.

certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been 44 A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, September 19, 2007, 533 SCRA 534.
45 A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC, March 6, 2012, 667 SCRA 467.
46 Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety that will prevent perceived matters of contusion and-
Corporation, G.R. No.180880-81, September 18, 2012. complication.
47 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026.

48 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18.


An open admission that the Court committed errors or made
49 Id.
inaccurate findings and dispositions in Velez and in the above
50 Id.
entitled administrative matters would expose the Court to
51 Id.
unnecessary criticism. The reversal or modification of the
52 Rollo, pp. 3021-3022.
December 14, 2010 Resolution, without doubt, will cause
53 Id. at 2998-3026.
irreparable damage and extreme prejudice to the Court and
54 Resolution, December 14, 2010, id. at 3021-3022.
the entire judicial institution. Hence, this dissent.
55 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18.

56 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026.


The Case
57 Id.

58 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18.


59 Rollo, pp. 3616-3617. For resolution of the Court is the "Motion for Leave to
60 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18. Intervene and to Admit the Attached Petition for Intervention"
61 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026. filed by the IBP-Southern Luzon Region (IBP-SLR) on July 24,
62 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18. 2012.
63 Cited in A.M. No. 4826, January 27, 1999, In The Matter of the

Petition To Remove Atty. Jose A. Grapilon as President, Proposed intervening petitioner IBP-SLR seeks to re-open, set
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. (http:// sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ aside and nullify the Resolution of this Court dated December
jurisprudence /1999/apr99/ac_4826.htm; last visited March 29, 14, 2010 which declared that "either the governor of the
2013). Western Visayas Region or the governor of the Eastern
64 Resolution, dated December 4, 2012, rollo, pp. 3004-3005. Mindanao Region should be elected as Executive Vice
65 Id. at 3019. President for the 2009-2011 term," and that the "one who is
66 Id. at 2998-3026. not chosen for this term shall have his turn in the next 2011-
67 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18. 2013 term." The said Resolution, which became final in
68 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026. February 2011, was penned by then Chief Justice Renato C.
69 Velez v. de Vera, Supra note 18. Corona and was concurred in by seven (7) Justices (Teresita J.
70 Id. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin,
71 Rollo, pp. 2998-3026. Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez
72 Velez v. de Vera, supra note 18. and Jose Catral Mendoza). Justice Antonio T. Carpio and the
undersigned cast dissenting votes, while Justices Conchita
Carpio-Morales (ret.), Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (now also
DISSENTING OPINION retired), Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Maria
Lourdes P. A. Sereno (now Chief Justice) inhibited from these
consolidated cases.
VELASCO, JR., J.:

A YEAR and FIVE MONTHS after finality of the said December


Prefatory Statement
14, 2010 Resolution and despite its partial execution with the
election, representing Eastern Mindanao Region for the term
What basically is a simple incident involving nothing more than 2009-2011, of Atty. Roan I. Libarios (Atty. Libarios) as Executive
the execution of the last phase of the Court's final and Vice President (EVP), IBP-SLR, represented by Governor Joyas, a
executory Resolution dated December 14, 2010 on the non-party to the instant cases, who now wants to resurrect a
leadership structure of the IBP has all of a sudden turned into a case in repose.
complex proceeding where said resolution is being revisited
and sought to be revised and set aside and new matters are
To recall, there is not a single decision or resolution of this
considered. But worse, the adverted decision is claimed to be a
Court that reversed or annulled its previous final decision that
mistake, reasons are proffered why it should not be executed
was not based on a motion filed within the fifteen (15)-day
as written, and the abandonment of what it perceives to be a
period from notice of said assailed decision. The cases of Apo
flawed ruling based on the faulty recommendations of the
Fruits and Keppel are not precedents to the instant cases since
Special Committee composed of highly respected retired
the affected parties thereat filed their motions for
Justices of the Court is now proposed. Lastly, even the ruling in
reconsideration within the 15-day period. Simply put, Apo
Velez v. De Vera1 is seen as an erroneous disposition of the
Fruits and Keppel were "LIVE" cases when the losing parties
rotation issue of the Executive Vice President of the IBP. The
sought reconsideration. Unlike here.
better option under the premises, I submit, is first to allow the
full implementation of the Court's Decision. The Court can later
form a committee to recommend measures to improve the If the proposition in the ponencia that the December 14, 2010
system and then adopt measures and/or promulgate new rules Decision on the EVP issue should be nullified is upheld, this
case will be the very first instance where the Court will make a
brazen volte-face of its already final and partially executed As regards the election of the IBP-EVP, the Special Committee
resolution. Worse, this will be done at the instance of a non- cited in its Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009 that
party who does not stand to benefit from the ponencia since "Sec. 47, Art VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter 491,
his region (SLR) had already its turn to field its own EVP. Such a Oct. 6, 1989, provides that the Executive Vice President shall be
move would set a bad and dangerous precedent and seriously chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine (9)
erode the stability of final decisions and resolutions. regional governors. The Executive Vice President shall
automatically become president for the next succeeding term.
Factual Antecedents The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions." The
Committee further stated:
In 2009, some high-ranking officers of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) filed an administrative case in relation to the The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee
leadership and election controversies in the IBP. In that case, by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
docketed as A.C. No. 8292 and entitled Attys. Marcial M. following regions were President of the IBP during the past
Magsino, et al. v. Attys. Rogelio A. Vinluan, et al., the Court, in nine (9) terms (1991-2009):
an En Banc Resolution dated June 2, 2009, created a Special
(Investigating) Committee2 composed of Justices Carolina
Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. Central Luzon 1991-1993
C. Griño-Aquino, Bernardo P. Pardo and Romeo J. Callejo,
(Pangasinan)
Sr. to look into the "brewing controversies in the IBP elections,
specifically in the elections of Vice-President for the Greater Mervin G. Encanto Greater 1993-1995
Manila Region and Executive Vice-President of the IBP itself x x x (Quezon City) Manila
any other election controversy involving other chapters of the
IBP, if any." Raul R. Angangco Southern 1995-1997
(Makati) Luzon
During the Preliminary Conference before the Special
Jose Aguila Grapilon Eastern 1997-1999
Committee, all concerned agreed to focus the investigation on
(Biliran) Visayas
the following issues or concerns:
Arthur D. Lim Western 1999-2001
1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article V of (Zambasulta) Mindanao
the IBP By-Laws which provides:
Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. Northern 2001-2003
SEC. 31. Membership. — The membership (of Delegates) shall (Kalinga Apayao) Luzon
consist of all the Chapter Presidents and, in the case of
Jose Anselmo L. Cadiz Bicolandia 2005-Aug. 2006
Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice-
(Camarines Sur)
Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as
the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice-President is Jose Vicente B. Salazar Bicolandia Aug. 2006-2007
already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. (Albay)
Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be
elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of Feliciano M. Bautista Central Luzon 2007-2009
the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be (Pangasinan)
members ex officio of the House, without the right to vote.

Only the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern


2. Who was validly elected Governor for the Greater Manila
Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive
Region?
Vice President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon
and Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
3. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Visayas
Region?
Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas
Region, or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region
4. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Mindanao should be elected as Executive Vice President for the 2009-
Region? 2011 term. The one who is not chosen for this term, shall
have his turn in the next (2011-2013) term. (Emphasis
5. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice President for the supplied.)
next term?
On December 14, 2010, the Court, by Resolution (December 14,
6. What is the liability, if any, of respondent Atty. Rogelio A. 2010 Resolution), adopted in toto the Report and
Vinluan under the administrative complaint for "grave Recommendation of the Special Committee thus created, and
professional misconduct, violation of attorney's oath, and acts disposed of the controversies relating to the IBP elections as
inimical to the IBP" filed against him by Attys. Marcial Magsino, follows:
Manuel Maramba and Nasser Marohomsalic?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves that: Intervene and to Admit the Attached Petition-in-Intervention
seeking a declaration from the Court that the IBP-SLR may field
1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin M. a candidate for the position of IBP-EVP for the 2011-2013 term.
Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors for the In its Petition-in-Intervention, the IBP-SLR contends that the
Greater Manila Region, Western Visayas Region and Western non-assumption of Atty. Vinluan to the IBP-Presidency because
Mindanao Region, respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are of his disqualification pursuant to the December 14, 2010
UPHELD; Resolution denied the IBP-SLR the right to the IBP Presidency
for the 2009-2011 term without fault attributable to the region.
2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice The petition further underscored that it will take another
President for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED to be sixteen (16) years for the region to be entitled to vie for the
held under the supervision of this Court within seven (7) position of IBP-EVP. The IBP-SLR rued that considering the
days from receipt of this Resolution with Attys. Maramba, twelve (12)-year interval between the end of the term of Atty.
Fortunato and Marohomsalic being allowed to represent Raul R. Angangco in 1997 and the year 2009, when Atty.
and vote as duly-elected Governors of their respective Vinluan was supposed to assume the IBP Presidency, the region
regions; will have to wait a total of twenty-eight (28) years before it can
be afforded the chance under the rotation system to have
somebody from the region elected as IBP-EVP and eventually
3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon,
become IBP president.5
Jr., Evergisto Escalon and Raymund Mercado are all found
GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their
actuations in connection with the controversies in the elections In response, the IBP-Western Visayas Region (WVR) filed an "Ex
in the IBP last April 25, 2009 and May 9, 2009 and are hereby Abundanti Ad Cautelam Vigorous Opposition/Comment"6 to
disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any the proposed intervention ("Opposition/Comment")
subsequent election. While their elections as Governors for the asseverating that this Court, in its December 14, 20l0
term 2007-2009 can no longer be annulled as this has already Resolution, has already declared that "only the Governors of
expired, Atty. Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of the Western Visayas and Eastern Mindanao Regions have not
IBP Executive Vice President for the 2007-2009 term and had their turns as EVPs." But since incumbent president Roan I.
therefore barred from succeeding as IBP President for the Libarios was elected EVP for the 2009-2011 term, then it is only
2009-2011 term; IBP-WVR which is qualified to field a candidate for EVP for said
term. It also argued that the proposed intervention is improper,
filed as it was after the rendition and finality of the December
4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39,
l4, 20l0 Resolution. The IBP-SLR, IBP-WVR adds, is disqualified
42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-
to field a candidate since it has served as IBP-EVP twice. Lastly,
Laws as contained in the Report and Recommendation of the
the IBP-WVR points out that, in Velez v. De Vera,7 this Court
Special Committee dated July 9, 2009 are hereby approved and
has held that "the rotation rule pertains in particular to the
adopted; and
position of IBP-EVP while the automatic successions rule
pertains to the Presidency."
5.The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago Kapunan as
Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall continue, unless earlier
The House of Delegates of IBP-WVR and the IBP Governors for
revoked by the Court, but not to extend beyond June 30, 2011.
Eastern Visayas and WV Regions filed their comments8 on the
proposed intervention of IBP-SLR raising basically the same
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.) arguments of IBP-WVR in its Opposition/Comment.

On February 8, 2011, the Court denied with finality the Motion By Resolution of December 4, 2012, the Court addressed the
for Reconsideration of the December 14, 2010 Resolution filed issue sought to be clarified by IBP-WVR on the rotational rule
by Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.3 with respect to the election of governor of the said region. The
Court explained that the rotational rule was one by exclusion
Pursuant to the December 14, 2010 Resolution, a special such that in the election of the governor of a region, all
election was held to elect the IBP-EVP for the 2009-2011 term chapters of the region shall be given the opportunity to have
where Atty. Libarios of the IBP-Eastern Mindanao emerged as their nominee elected as governor, to the exclusion of those
winner.4 Atty. Libarios eventually assumed the IBP Presidency chapters that have already served in the rotational cycle.
for the 2011-2013 term. However, the Court deferred action on the proposed
intervention sought by the IBP-SLR and required the IBP Board
On April 27, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors requested a of Governors (BOG) to file its comment on the petition for
clarification from the Court as to the application of the intervention. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads as
rotational rule in the elections for Governor of the IBP-Western follows:
Visayas Region.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby holds that in the IBP-Western
On July 27, 2012, the IBP-SLR, represented by Governor Vicente Visayas Region, the rotation by exclusion shall be adopted such
M. Joyas ("Governor Joyas"), filed a Motion for Leave to that, initially, all chapters of the region shall have the equal
opportunity to vie for the position of Governor for the next DISCUSSION
cycle except Romblon.
First Issue:
The Temporary Restraining Order dated May 3, 2011 is hereby
lifted and the IBP-Western Visayas Region is hereby ordered to Whether the motion for intervention of IBP- SLR can be
proceed with its election of Governor for the 2011-2013 term allowed and admitted
pursuant to the rotation by exclusion rule.
Ruling on the issue in the affirmative, Justice Mendoza declares
The IBP Board of Governors is hereby ordered to file its in his ponencia that the Court, exercising its prerogative to
comment on the Petition for Intervention of IBP-Southern relax procedural rules on intervention, is allowing intervention
Luzon, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. in order to write finis to the present dispute and to prevent
similar IBP election controversies in the future.
SO ORDERED.
I believe otherwise.
In its Comment dated January 2, 2013, the IBP BOG prays that
the "IBP-Southern Luzon be allowed to nominate a candidate for The proposed intervention of IBP-SLR should be denied for the
EVP for the 2011-2013 term, without prejudice to the right of following reasons:
other regions except IBP-Eastern Mindanao, to do the same."9
1. IBP-SLR nor Governor Joyas has no legal interest in the
Subsequently, Governor Joyas filed a Rejoinder10 stating that subject matter of the litigation.
the Special Committee confined its computation of the rotation
cycle to the past nine (9) terms of IBP presidents (l99l to 2009) Neither IBP-SLR nor Governor Joyas has NO LEGAL INTEREST
and completely ignored the relevant period l990-l99l when IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LITIGATION, OR IN THE
Governor Eugene A. Tan of WV assumed the IBP Presidency. SUCCESS OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES as required under Sec. 1,
Since Western Visayas had its Governor Tan serving as Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
president (l990-l99l) after the adoption of the rotation rule
under Bar Matter No. 491, Governor Joyas then concludes that
SECTION 1. Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal
only Eastern Mindanao was eligible to vie for IBP-EBP for the
interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of
2009-2011 term. He also faults the Special Committee in
the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to
considering WVR as not yet having an IBP-EVP. Based on the
be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
past rotation of the presidency, Governor Joyas now prays that
property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
IBP-SLR be declared eligible to vie for the position of IBP-EVP
may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
cum president for the 20l3-20l5 term "without prejudice to
The court shall consider whether or not the intervenor’s rights
other regions also vying for the post."
may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

Issues
IBP-SLR is not qualified to field a candidate for IBP-EVP for the
term 2011-2013 because the BOG had already elected Atty.
I shall endeavor to address the following issues raised in the Raul Angangco of that region as IBP-EVP for the term l993-l995
ponencia: and, in addition, had also elected a 2nd IBP-EVP in the person
of Atty. Vinluan for the term 2009 to 2011. Clearly, the IBP-SLR
A. Whether the motion for intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon had already two (2) elected EVPs, thus precluding the election
can be allowed and admitted; of movant as the 3rd EVP in this present rotation.

B. Whether the first rotational cycle was completed with the Considering that IBP-SLR can no longer field a candidate for
election of Atty. Leonard De Vera; (This issue was not presented the position of IBP-EVP and not qualified to field a candidate
in the petition-in-intervention but was belatedly raised by IBP- for IBP-EVP for the 2011-2013 term, IBP-SLR and Governor
SLR only in its Rejoinder.) Joyas have NO legal interest in the matter subject of the
assailed December 14, 20l0 Resolution. Ergo, the proposed
C. Whether IBP-Southern Luzon has already served in the intervention has no leg to stand on and is patently devoid of
current rotation; and merit.

D. Whether the IBP-Western Visayas has already served in the As correctly concluded by Justice Mendoza in his first and
current rotation. second drafts but which conclusion unfortunately was deleted
in his third revision, IBP-SLR has NO right to vie for the position
of EVP for the term 2011-2013. Thus, he explained:
The Court rules in the negative. The reason is that IBP-Southern than ONE (1) FULL YEAR after assuming the position of SLR
Luzon already had its turn in the current rotational cycle. In its Governor before attempting to reopen the already final
December 14, 2010 Resolution, the Court stated: resolution of the Court. It cannot be denied that Governor
Joyas was fully aware of the December 14, 2010 Resolution of
xxxx this Court. Yet, without presenting any justifiable explanation,
he did not lift a finger to question the same when he became
With the election of Atty. Raul R. Angangco as EVP-IBP for the Governor for Southern Luzon. Based on this factual setting, it is
1993-1995 term, and his consequent assumption as IBP clear that there is already waiver on his part and the part of
president for the 1995-1997 term, it becomes clear that IBP- IBP-SLR to question the final and executory December 14, 2010
Southern Luzon already had its turn in the current rotation. Resolution.

Thus, the disqualification of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan as IBP Also, just like the movants in the aforementioned case of
president would not qualify IBP-Southern Luzon to participate Chavez, the IBP-SLR and Governor Joyas have not offered any
in the forthcoming elections for EVP-IBP, since, as stated in the explanation for their belated intervention considering that the
Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution quoted above, IBP- December 14, 2010 Resolution and the proceedings leading up
Southern Luzon was able to serve as IBP-EVP for the 1993-1995 to the same were controversial, publicized and known to the
term. The rule was restated in Velez v. De Vera as follows: movant. Indeed, they could not "feign unawareness" of the said
resolution. Worse, the IBP-SLR had every opportunity to
intervene before the finality of the December 14, 2010
In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP
Resolution but it chose to do so at this very late stage when the
which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors.
proposed intervention can only serve to delay the execution of
The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of
the Resolution. Hence, because of their unjustified inaction for
the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency.
a considerable period of time, both the IBP-SLR and Governor
Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of
Joyas are ESTOPPED from questioning said Resolution.
IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the
Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a
consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in 3. Pinlac v. Court of Appeals12 and the cases cited thereunder
Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws. are not PRECEDENTS TO the petition at bar.

At any rate, it bears mentioning that with the election and The ponencia cites Pinlac as justification for the Court to relax
service of Atty. Vinluan of the IBP-Southern Luzon as EVP-IBP the procedural rules on intervention. However, it must be
for the 2007-2009 term, the purpose of the rotation system to pointed out that Pinlac is not applicable to and, hence, cannot
give equal opportunity to all regions of the IBP has already serve as precedent to the case at bar. In Pinlac, the Republic of
been satisfied. the Philippines, as intervenor, undoubtedly had legal interest in
a five (5)-hectare lot in Quezon City covered by OCT No. 333
where several government buildings, offices and complexes are
Moreover, the latest version of Justice Mendoza’s ponencia
situated, such as the House of Representatives and the
admitted that:
Sandiganbayan, among others.

With respect to IBP-Southern Luzon, following the ruling in


On the other hand, IBP-SLR and Governor Joyas have no
Velez, it is clear that it already had its turn to serve as EVP in
interest in the matter in litigation, as admitted by Justice
the Second Rotational Cycle.11
Mendoza in the first and second draft ponencias where he
found that IBP-SLR already had two (2) EVPs (Angangco and
Consequently, this finding of Justice Mendoza that IBP-SLR Vinluan) and in the third draft ponencia where it was concluded
does not have any right to field a candidate for EVP for the that IBP-SLR already had its turn in choosing the EVP and,
2011-2013 term precludes the Court from entertaining the hence, is not qualified for the second rotation (p. 13, third draft
petition-in-intervention of said region. ponencia).

2. IBP-SLR and Governor Joyas are guilty of estoppel. Neither does Mago v. Court of Appeals13 apply to the case at
bar. In said case, petitioner Mago filed a Petition for Relief from
The intervention of IBP-SLR was filed only on July 27, 2012 or Judgment/Order and a Motion to Intervene before the trial
MORE THAN A YEAR after Governor Joyas assumed the court sixty-nine (69) days after he learned of the judgment and,
position of Governor for Southern Luzon on July l, 2011 and hence, were denied on that ground. The intervention was
over one (1) year and five (5) months after the judgment of a allowed as the Court found the intervenors therein as
case in which intervention is sought has become final and indispensable parties with such substantial interest in the
executory. controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot
be made in their absence without affecting, nay injuring, such
In view thereof, Governor Joyas is considered estopped from interest. The application of rules was relaxed to disregard the
questioning the already final and partially executed December tardy filing of the petition by nine (9) days to serve the ends of
14, 2010 Resolution. As it were, Governor Joyas waited for more equity and justice based on substance and merit.
This, however, cannot be said of IBP-SLR and Gov. Joyas The December 14, 2010 Resolution has become FINAL AND
because, as erstwhile stated, IBP-SLR is already precluded from EXECUTORY after the Court denied with finality the Motion for
fielding a candidate for the position of the EVP pursuant to the Reconsideration of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III on February 8,
rotation by exclusion rule. 2011.16

In addition, the judgment of the RTC in Mago has not yet been Thus, the said Resolution has become IMMUTABLE AND
executed when it was questioned by Mago, et al. unlike the UNALTERABLE and is no longer open to any amendment. Once
December 14, 2010 Resolution in the instant case. a judgment becomes final, it may not be modified in any
respect even if the modification is meant to correct what is
The cited Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals14 is also perceived to be erroneous conclusions of law and fact.17
inapplicable because, unlike IBP-SLR and Governor Joyas, the
intervenors therein had substantial interest in the matter in In Chavez v. PCGG,18 the Court expressly ruled that the
litigation and, unlike the present case, there was no final and intervention sought by the movants can no longer be allowed
partially executed decision. In that case, Greenfield after its judgment has become final, to wit:
Development Corporation and Alabang Development
Corporation filed their respective motions for intervention. Movants Ma. Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, et al. allege that they
Incidentally, their motions were filed when the petition for are parties and signatories to the General and Supplemental
certiorari of the Director of Lands was submitted for decision Agreements dated December 28, 1993, which this Court, in its
but before this Court rendered any judgment thereon. The Decision promulgated on December 9, 1998, declared "NULL
Court found that Greenfield and Alabang had interest in the AND VOID for being contrary to law and the Constitution." As
title sought to be reconstituted by private respondent therein such, they claim to "have a legal interest in the matter in
because the land covered by the title overlapped and included litigation, or in the success of either of the parties or an interest
substantial portions of the land owned by Greenfield and against both as to warrant their intervention." They add that
Alabang. Aside from recognizing the movants as indispensable their exclusion from the instant case resulted in a denial of their
parties to the case, the Court granted the intervention in view constitutional rights to due process and to equal protection of
of the higher and greater interest of the public in the efficacy the laws. x x x x
and integrity of our land registration system.
The motions are not meritorious.
In the instant case, however, there appears to be no higher or
greater public interest which will be served in granting IBP- Intervention Not Allowed After Final Judgment
SLR’s intervention. Thus, reliance on the case of Director of
Lands is misplaced.
First, we cannot allow the Motion for Leave to Intervene at this
late stage of the proceedings. Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of
Similarly, Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of Court, provides that a motion to intervene should be filed
Appeals15 (Tahanan) is not a precedent to the case at bar. In "before rendition of judgment . . ." Our Decision was
the said case, Tahanan filed a Petition to Set Aside Decision promulgated December 9, 1998, while movants came to us
and Re-Open Proceedings 41 days after the trial court granted only on January 22, 1999. Intervention can no longer be
the petition for reconstitution of a title covering a parcel of allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment.
land which overlaps a substantial part of Tahanan’s land. This
Court held that the trial court committed grave abuse of
Second, they do not even offer any valid plausible excuse for
discretion when it denied Tahanan’s "Petition to Set Aside
such late quest to assert their alleged rights. Indeed, they may
Decision and Re-Open Proceedings," for, while said petition
have no cogent reason at all. As Petitioner Chavez asserts, the
was not captioned as "Motion for Intervention," the allegations
original petition, which was filed on October 3, 1997, was well-
of the petition clearly and succinctly averred Tahanan’s legal
publicized. So were its proceedings, particularly the oral
interest in the matter in litigation, which interest is substantial
arguments heard on March 16, 1998. Movants have long been
and material, involving the boundaries, possession and
back in the mainstream of Philippine political and social life.
ownership of about nine (9) hectares of land covered by the
title sought to be reconstituted.
Indeed, they could not (and in fact did not) even feign
unawareness of the petition prior to its disposition.
Like Director of Lands, the intervenors in Tahanan had legal
interest in the matter in litigation and interposed their plea for
intervention before the execution of the decision. Third, the assailed Decision has become final and executory;
the original parties have not filed any motion for
reconsideration, and the period for doing so has long lapsed.
4. IBP-SLR can no longer intervene because the December 14,
Indeed, the movants are now legally barred from seeking leave
2010 Resolution is already final and executory, and in fact, had
to participate in this proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)
already been PARTIALLY EXECUTED.

Verily, there is NO jurisprudence allowing an intervention by a


person who has not shown any legal interest in the matter in
litigation after the decision has become final and executory. be the most significant and hence, will be discussed here at
Section 2, Rule 19 is explicit that no intervention is allowed length.
after the judgment has become final. Once finality sets in, what
remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement and Right off, it is my considered view that this issue should be
execution of the judgment. resolved in the negative. Necessarily, IBP-WVR should be
considered as the only region which can vie for the position of
The former practice under Section 2, Rule 12 was to allow the IBP EVP for the 2011-2013 term, or what is left of it.
intervention "before or during trial." Subsequently, the Court
liberalized the rule even further by allowing intervention before The "rotation by exclusion rule" in the election of IBP-EVP was
judgment is rendered which is now captured in Section 2, Rule introduced in Bar Matter No. 491, In the Matter of the Inquiry
l9 of the Rules of Court. The rationale behind the revised rule is into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the
clear – before a decision is rendered, the Court may still allow Philippines.21 In that case, the Court annulled the election of
the introduction of additional evidence by applying the liberal the national officers of the IBP held on June 3, 1989 and
interpretation of the period for trial which may be akin to directed the holding of special elections for the Governors of
reopening of trial. Since judgment has not yet been rendered, each of the nine (9) IBP Regions and subsequent thereto, the
the issues and subject matter of the intervention may still be election of the IBP national president and IBP-EVP. This is
resolved and incorporated in the decision; thus, the court is embodied in the Court’s per curiam Resolution of October 6,
able to dispose of all the issues in the case. However, after l989, the fallo of which pertinently reads:
judgment has been rendered, the court will no longer have the
opportunity to conduct a total and exhaustive reassessment of It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the
all the issues in the case and the reopening of the case will provision in the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 8, Art. VIII) providing
greatly delay its adjudication. Needless to say, the resurrection for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of seven (7) members
of the case will be strictly considered against the proposed among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar," x x x
intervention after the decision is rendered and has become may be the reason why the position of IBP president has
final. attracted so much interest among the lawyers. The much
coveted "power" erroneously perceived to be inherent in that
For instance, in Looyuko v. Court of Appeals,19 the motions for office might have caused the corruption of the IBP elections. To
intervention were filed after judgment had already been impress upon the participants in that electoral exercise the
rendered and when the same has become final and executory. seriousness of the misconduct which attended it and the stern
Thus, this Court held that intervention can no longer be disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to restore
allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. Since the non-political character of the IBP and reduce, if not entirely
intervention is merely a collateral or accessory or ancillary to eliminate, expensive electioneering for the top positions in the
the principal action, and not an independent proceeding but organization x x x the Court hereby ORDERS:
rather a dependent on or subsidiary to the case between the
original parties, when the main action ceases to exist, then 1. The IBP elections held on June 3, 1989 should be as they are
there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention may hereby annulled.
be based.20

2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by


Obviously, in the instant case, there is no more pending the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in its
principal action wherein IBP-SLR may intervene since the Court resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) of the
already rendered a judgment which has since become final and following national officers:
executory. And in this case, it is significant to note that the
December 14, 2010 Resolution has already been PARTIALLY
(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
EXECUTED when Atty. Libarios of IBP-Eastern Mindanao was
elected as IBP president and, hence, the only remaining
ministerial act to be performed is the election of an IBP-EVP (b) the IBP president; and
from the IBP-WVR for the term 2011 to 2013. Since the instant
case is already in the execution stage, then there is no rhyme or (c) the executive vice-president.
reason why an intervention at this late stage will still be
allowed. be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or
repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said
Core Issue: By-Laws.

Whether the IBP-Western Visayas has already served in the 3. The former system of having the IBP president and EVP
current rotation elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the governors
of the nine (9) IBP regions) from among themselves (as
Of the three remaining issues espoused by the ponencia, I find provided in Sec. 47, Art. XII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be
the fourth issue, or the issue on whether the IBP-Western restored. The right of automatic succession by the EVP to the
Visayas (IBP-WVR) has already served in the current rotation to presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which
was abolished by this Court’s resolution dated July 9, 1985 in 10. Section 33(a), Article V is hereby amended by adding the
Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored. following provision as part of the first paragraph:

4. At the end of the president’s two-year term, the [EVP] shall ‘No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general
automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming membership shall be held prior to any election in an election
board of governors shall then elect an EVP from among year.’
themselves. The position of EVP shall be rotated among the
nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president may not 11. Section 39 (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI
run for election as [EVP] in a succeeding election until after the should be as they are hereby deleted.
rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall
have been completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by
anew. the Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter
No. 287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as modified.
follows:
12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in
‘Section 47. National Officers .- The Integrated Bar of the the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months after the
Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President promulgation of the Court’s resolution in this case. Within
to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at
regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among
The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-
respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and president. In these specialelections, the candidates in the
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the election of the national officers held on June 3, 1989,
President with the consent of the Board.’ particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled
"Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those
6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the
follows: irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and
may not present themselves as candidate for any position.
‘(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall
be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House 13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be
of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP.
shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
House of Delegates.’ The Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are
without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further
7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of and other measures as are warranted in the premises.
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and Sergeant-
at-Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed. SO ORDERED. (Emphasis ours.)

8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows: Accordingly, to administer the affairs of the IBP pending the
election of its national officers, the Court ordered the creation
‘Section 37. Composition of the Board. – The Integrated Bar of of the IBP Caretaker Board.22 Immediately after its constitution,
the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors the IBP Caretaker Board conducted and administered the
consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as simultaneous election of Governors for each of the nine (9) IBP
delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the Regions.23
representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be
elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that A week thereafter, the then newly-constituted IBP BOG directly
region only. The position of Governor should be rotated elected Atty. Eugene A. Tan (Atty. Tan), then IBP-WVR
among the different Chapters in the region.’ Governor, as Acting IBP National President, to serve for the
remainder of the supposed 1989-1991 term or from January
9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows: 1990 to April 1991. The 1989-1991 term pertained to that of
President Violeta Calvo-Drilon of Greater Manila Region.
‘Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. – At Elected with Atty. Tan was Atty. Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr. (Atty.
least one (1) month before the national convention the Tanopo), the Governor from the IBP-Central Luzon Region, who
delegates from each region shall elect the Governor for their was to assume the position of EVP-IBP pursuant to paragraph 4
region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be of the fallo of Bar Matter No. 491. When Atty. Tan resigned
rotated among the chapters in the region.’ before the expiration of his term as IBP president, Atty. Tanopo
became Acting President but eventually assumed the position
of national president for the term 1991-1993 in accordance adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some
with the IBP By-Laws. definite date fixed by law. The Supreme Court reiterated that
the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is adhered to by
It is on the basis of these factual antecedents that IBP-SLR, necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result
through Atty. Joyas, insists that IBP-WVR was already thereby, since litigations must somehow come to an end for
represented and was given the opportunity to serve as IBP otherwise, it would even be more intolerable than the wrong
national president in the person of Atty. Tan. Hence, IBP SLR and injustice it is designed to correct.
insists that IBP WVR is no longer qualified to vie for IBP EVP.
In Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, we held that:
The ponencia of Justice Mendoza would sustain the position of
IBP-SLR, a posture I am inclined to disagree with for the A definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer
following reasons: subject to change or revision.

(1) The December 14, 2010 Resolution has already become A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
final, immutable and unalterable. unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the
modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is
Through their proposed intervention, IBP-SLR would like the meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And
Court to scuttle IBP-WVR’s entitlement to field a candidate for this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by
IBP-EVP for the 2011-2013 term for the reason that the Special the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.
Committee erred when it failed to consider the election of Tan The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of
as temporary or interim IBP-president in l990. It may be occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must
conceded, for argument, that an error was committed by the reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to
Special Committee, but such error, if that be the case, was write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental
peremptorily adopted by the Court in its own final December principle in our justice system, without which there would be
14, 20l0 Resolution.24 no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this
principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the
It is a fundamental legal principle that a final decision is power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle,
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in must immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle of
any respect, whether it be made by the court that rendered it conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its
or by the highest court of the land.25 operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as
courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers
had been conferred." (Emphasis supplied.)
Litigation must at some time end. Even at the risk of occasional
errors, public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes
final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should The doctrine of immutability of judgments protects the
not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge substantive rights of the winning party. Just as the losing party
devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the
enforcement of a judgment sets to naught the role and winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality
purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable controversies with of the resolution of the case. The Court expounded on this
finality.26 postulate in Judge Angeles v. Hon. Gaite:

As explained in Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble,27 the doctrine The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the
of immutability of judgment is grounded on fundamental fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that,
considerations of public policy and that adherence to said at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the
principle must be maintained by those who exercise the power award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some
of adjudication. The Court said that: definite date fixed by law. x x x x

It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final In Peña v. Government Service Insurance System (G.R. No.
and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, 159520, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 383), we held that:
even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the x x x it is axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no
modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,
or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land. Just
is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
judgment. prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice xxxx
that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of
The rule on finality of decisions, orders or resolutions of a (2) Atty. Tan’s term should not be considered as the turn of
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body is "not a question IBP Western Visayas at the IBP leadership.
of technicality but of substance and merit," the underlying
consideration therefore, being the protection of the substantive My reasons:
rights of the winning party. Nothing is more settled in law than
that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable First, Atty. Tan must be considered a mere acting
and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect president who served during the transition period and before
even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous the actual implementation of the rules on rotation by exclusion.
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the
court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
This is clear under Section 8 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of
(citing Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, 428 SCRA 586, 599
Court which provides:
(2004)28 (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 8. Vacancies. — In the event the President is absent


In Banogon v. Zerna,29 the Court reminded litigants and lawyers
or unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the
that the time of the judiciary is too valuable to be wasted to
Executive Vice President; and in the event of the death,
evade the operation of a final decision. The Court explained,
resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice
thus:
President shall serve as Acting President during the
remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, event of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of
and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of both the President and the Executive Vice President, the
justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold
party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits office until the next succeeding election or during the
of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme period of disability.
calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to
put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of
attempt to prolong them.
Governors, and all other positions of Officers of the Integrated
Bar shall be as provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of
There should be a greater awareness on the part of litigants an office or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to
that the time of the judiciary, much more so of this Court, is fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the unexpired term.
too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from
commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and
Corollary thereto, Section 11 of the IBP By-Laws likewise states:
executory, especially so, where, as shown in this case, the clear
and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is
quite obvious and in-disputable. Section 11. Vacancies. - Except as otherwise provided in these
By-Laws, whenever the term of office or position, whether
elective or appointive, is for a fixed period, the person chosen
The immutability of judgments doctrine, to be sure, admits of
to fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the unexpired
several exceptions, to wit: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2)
portion of the term.
nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3)
void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust From the foregoing, it is clear that in case of vacancy in the
and inequitable.30 The Court has relaxed this rule in order to position of the IBP President, the person who shall act as
serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, Acting President would only serve during the remainder of the
honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling term.
circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party For instance, for the term 1985-1987, on March 1986, when
favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any then IBP President Simeon M. Valdez of Northern Luzon
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; resigned in the middle of his term, then EVP Vicente D. Millora
and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 31 of IBP Central Luzon immediately served as acting president for
the remainder of Atty. Valdez’s term. When Atty. Millora also
A careful review of the circumstances surrounding this case resigned in March 1987, or before the term ended, this writer,
reveals that none of the foregoing exceptions warranting the as then Governor for Southern Luzon, was elected by the BOG
relaxation of the doctrine of immutability of judgments or any as acting President and assumed office in that capacity until the
circumstance analogous to the said exceptions is present in this remainder of the term ending June 30, 1987. In all these cases,
case. Moreover, absolutely nothing transpired after the finality the tenure of Atty. Millora of Central Luzon and that of this
of the December 14, 2010 Resolution which would render its writer representing Southern Luzon as acting IBP presidents
execution unjust and inequitable. It should, thus, be respected were not considered a new term for their respective regions for
in its entirety. the position of EVP. The term 1985-1987 was specifically the
term for and was accordingly charged against Northern Luzon.
The precedent that obtained during the 1985-1987 term of implementation of the rotation. It is the election of Atty.
Atty. Valdez finds application to the case at bar. Atty. Tan was Tanopo as EVP which must be considered as the beginning of
elected to fill the vacancy which was supposedly for Atty. Drilon the sequence under the new rotation scheme for EVPs. The
of Greater Manila Region for the 1989-1991 term and with the conclusion that the election of Atty. Tanopo as EVP started the
understanding that, pursuant to the rotation finds mooring in the very directive of this Court in par.
4 of the fallo in Bar Matter No. 491, which reads:
Rules, Atty. Tan would only serve for the unexpired portion of
the 1989-1991 term. In effect, Atty. Tan served as Acting The incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive
President for the remainder of a term which was the turn of IBP Vice President from among themselves. The position of
Greater Manila Region from which Atty. Drilon belongs. After Executive Vice President shall be rotated among the nine (9)
Atty. Tan resigned, EVP Tanopo of Central Luzon succeeded as IBP regions.
Acting President pursuant to Section 8, Rule 139-A of the Rules
until the end of Atty. Drilon’s term on June 30, 1987. Thus, the Analyzing the Court’s disposition in that case, if this Court
tenure of Atty. Tan as Acting President for 1 year and 2 months indeed meant that the election of Atty. Tan will be the
during the 1989-1991 term of Atty. Drilon cannot in anyway be beginning of the rotation, then it could have so stated and
considered as the term of Western Visayas. could have limited the succeeding election of the EVPs to the
other eight IBP Regions, thus effectively excluding the IBP-WVR
Furthermore, the remainder of the said term is still part of the in the subsequent election for EVPs. The fallo does not say so
previous term which, technically, is a term existing before Bar and no interpretation is needed when the disposition of the
Matter 491 took into effect and, thus, prior to the full Court is clear and unambiguous. This is further bolstered by the
implementation of the rotation by exclusion scheme. fact that during the elections for the 2005-2007 term, the IBP
Board of Governors allowed the then Governor of IBP Western
It must likewise be recalled that Atty. Tan’s election as acting Visayas, Atty. J.B. Jovy C. Bernabe, to vie for the position of EVP.
IBP national president was an aftermath of the nullification of He eventually lost to Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista who was
the 1989 IBP elections, the subject matter of Bar Matter No. elected EVP for said term.
491. At that time, there was a vacuum in the position of
national president and the Court found it necessary to create a Second, the "rotation by exclusion" rule pertains in particular to
Caretaker Board to administer the affairs of the IBP until a new the position of IBP-EVP, NOT to the position of the IBP
set of national officers shall have been elected. Presidency.

Regardless of whether this case is an administrative matter or In Bar Matter No. 491, this Court disposed:
not, the doctrine of immutability of judgments should be
applied. The public has to be sure the right to believe and feel 4. At the end of the President’s two-year term, the Executive
secure that any decision or resolution of this Court will attain Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of
finality at some definite time. If this Court will just shun the president. The incoming board of governors shall then elect an
doctrine because of this case being a "mere" administrative Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position
matter, then a dangerous precedent will be set and the public of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9)
at large can no longer feel secure in whatever pronouncement IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run for
this Court makes. In truth, administrative cases can and do election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election
affect a broad group of people. Example of this is the instant until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9)
case and all other IBP-related matters previously discussed. regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation
Lawyers are members of the IBP and the result of this case will shall begin anew.
eventually have a large impact on how they will handle their
current and future cases and how they will deal with and Also, Velez v. De Vera,32 penned by Justice Minita V. Chico-
perceive this Court and other courts. Nazario, enunciated that the rule on "rotation by exclusion"
pertains in particular to the position of IBP-EVP and the IBP
Since Atty. Tan became acting national president by virtue of a Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession of the
special election and due to special circumstances, Atty. Tan IBP-EVP to the Presidency, thus:
must be considered an interim president who served during
the transition period and before the actual implementation of In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP
the rules on "rotation by exclusion" for the EVP and "automatic which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors.
succession" for the position of national president. Atty. Tan was The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of
elected as acting national president for the remainder of what the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency.
would have been the 1989-1991 term of then president-elect Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of
Atty. Violeta C. Drilon of the Greater Manila Region because IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the
precisely there was no IBP president at that time. Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a
consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in
Bar Matter No. 491 would also reveal that Atty. Tan’s election Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws. (Emphasis supplied.)
as a transition president cannot be considered as an
Further echoing the foregoing pronouncements, this Court, in before he or she can serve as national president for the next
its December 14, 2012 Resolution, ordered: term.

4. The proposed amendments to Section 31, 33, par. (g), 39, 42 This process must be satisfied in strict sequence in order to
and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws consider that a specific IBP region had already completed its
as contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Special turn at the IBP leadership under the rotation by exclusion rule.
Committee dated July 9, 2009 are hereby approved and As a consequence, under ordinary circumstances, a complete
adopted. (Emphasis supplied.) turn at IBP leadership is equivalent to two years of service as
EVP for the immediately preceding term plus another two years
In relation thereto, the Report and Recommendation of the of service as IBP national president.
Special Committee dated July 9, 2009 provides:
Hence, following the same line of thought and considering that
F. That in view of the fact that the IBP no longer elects its Atty. Tan of the WVR did not become EVP in the immediately
President, because the Executive Vice-President automatically preceding term before he assumed office as IBP president, the
succeeds the President at the end of his term, Sec. 47, Article start of the sequence or rotation should be reckoned from the
VII of the By-Laws should be amended by deleting the time Atty. Tanopo, then Governor of IBP Central Luzon, became
provision for the election of the President. Moreover, for the EVP, and that the turn of IBP Central Luzon was deemed
strict implementation of the rotation rule, the Committee completed when Atty. Tanopo became national president in
recommends that there should be a sanction for its violation, 1991-1993. This was aptly reflected in the July 2009 Report and
thus: Recommendations of the Special Committee which deemed it
appropriate to start the rotation with Atty. Tanopo and not with
Sec. 47. National Officer. – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Atty. Tan.
shall have a President, an Executive Vice President, and nine (9)
Regional Governors. The Executive Vice President shall be Apparently, ALL of the other eight regions already had their
elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of governors complete turns at the IBP leadership except for IBP-WVR. From
from among themselves, by the vote of at least five (5) the term of Atty. Tanopo until the present term of Atty.
Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice-President for Libarios, ALL of the eight regions were given the opportunity to
their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and serve as EVP during the immediately preceding term before
Treasurer of the Board of Governors. they were able to assume office as IBP national president.

The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be This is, however, not true in the case of Atty. Tan as he was
penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of directly elected by the then IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Tan
the offender from the election or appointment to any office in was not elected as IBP-EVP for the immediately preceding term
the IBP. before assuming office as IBP president and, in fact, only IBP
WVR has yet to have its turn for the IBP-EVP as a mandatory
By virtue of the foregoing amendments, it is already an stepping stone to the IBP Presidency.
established rule that the "rotation rule applies to the position
of the IBP EVP" and NOT to the election of national president In all, the IBP EVP-to-IBP Presidency route prescribed under the
because the EVP merely assumes the position of the national IBP By-Laws was not, in the case of Atty. Tan, accomplished.
president after the latter’s term has expired. It is, therefore, Hence, there is no reason to conclude that IBP-Western Visayas
clear as day that the national president is not elected by the IBP had already completed its turn under the rotation by exclusion
Board of Governors under the rotation by exclusion rule, and, rule. Since the other eight IBP regions have already completed
hence, does not participate in the rotation. Whatever is their respective turns, the preordained conclusion is that IBP-
sometimes described as a "rotation of the presidency" actually Western Visayas is the ninth region and, therefore, the only
means the rotation of the EVPs, which necessarily results in the region left entitled to vie for EVP in the current rotation.
rotation of the national presidents.
Lastly, the IBP top leadership structure provides for a two-year
Third, to be considered a complete turn at the IBP Leadership, stint for the EVP and another two years for the national
one must first be elected as EVP for the current term before he president.
or she can serve as national president for the next term.
From the context of fairness and under the objective of
With respect to the IBP Presidency, Section 47 of the IBP By- operationalizing the spirit and intention of the "rotation by
Laws provides the mandatory process of: first, election of a exclusion rule" to give each and every region a chance at the
Governor as EVP and second, automatic succession to the IBP leadership, it would be unfair to consider Atty. Tan’s tenure
office of IBP president after serving as EVP for the immediately of just one year and three months as equal to the accumulated
preceding term. This means that for a turn in the rotation to be term of four years of service which has already been accorded
complete, one must first be elected as EVP for the current term to all of the other eight regions. The fact that Atty. Tan
resigned while serving as interim IBP president is immaterial
because even if he did not resign, his tenure would still be less Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. Northern Luzon 2001-2003
than two years and, hence, less than the tenure already given (Kalinga Apayao)
to the other eight regions. This is clearly unfair for IBP-Western
Visayas and definitely prejudicial to the interests of the lawyer- Jose Anselmo L. Cadiz Bicolandia 2005-Aug. 2006
members of that region as it will be tantamount to deprivation (Camarines Sur)
of their right to elect an EVP, who will eventually become the
regular national president. Jose Vicente B. Salazar Bicolandia Aug. 2006-2007
(Albay)
Thus, fair play demands that IBP-Western Visayas be afforded
Feliciano M. Bautista Central Luzon 2007-2009
no less than the opportunity to sit as IBP-EVP for the term
(Pangasinan)
2011-2013 and as IBP president thereafter, before the position
of the EVP may be made open to other regions.
Only the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
(3) There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this Court’s Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice
December 14, 20l0 Resolution. President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and
Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
As earlier adverted, the Court in its December 14, 2010
Resolution adopted the findings of the Special Committee Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,
created to investigate, analyze and make recommendations on or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be
brewing controversies which tainted the 2009 IBP Elections. elected as Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term.
These findings, as contained in the committee’s Report and
Recommendation, are reproduced anew: Accordingly, a special election shall be held by the present
nine-man IBP Board of Governors to elect the EVP for the
III. Rulings of the Court remainder of the term of 2009-2011, which shall be presided
over and conducted by IBP Officer-in-Charge Justice Santiago
xxxx Kapunan (Ret.) within seven (7) days from notice.33 (Emphasis
ours.)
In the conduct of the unified election of the incoming EVP, the
following findings and recommendations of the Committee From the foregoing, it is clear that the special election to be
shall be adopted: held by the IBP BOG is for the election of the EVP for the 2009-
2011 term, and that only the nominees of the IBP-WVR and IBP
Eastern Mindanao were qualified to vie for the position of EVP.
THE ROTATION OF THE PRESIDENCY AMONG THE REGIONS––
As aptly observed by the Special Committee in its Report:

Sec. 47, Art. VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter 491,
j. x x x Inasmuch as for the past nine (9) terms, i.e., since the
Oct. 6, 1989, provides that the Executive Vice President shall be
1991-1993 term, the nominees of the Western Visayas and
chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine (9)
Eastern Mindanao Regions have not yet been elected Executive
regional governors. The Executive Vice President shall
Vice President of the IBP, the special election shall choose only
automatically become President for the next succeeding term.
between the nominees of these two (2) regions who shall
The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions.
become the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term in
accordance with the strict rotation rule.34 (Emphasis ours.)
The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee
by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
Thus, the three-man Special Committee correctly concluded
following regions were President of the IBP during the past
that "the one who is not chosen for 2009-2011 term shall have
nine (9) terms (1991-2009):
its turn in the next 2011-2013 term."
Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. Central Luzon 1991-1993
(Pangasinan) The ponencia, however, contends that the Special Committee
in this Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution failed to take into
Mervin G. Encanto Greater Manila 1993-1995
account the Velez ruling and, in the process, committed two
(Quezon City)
"inaccuracies," thus:
Raul R. Anchangco Southern Luzon 1995-1997
(Makati) Apparently, the report of the Special Committee failed to take
into account the ruling in Velez that the service of then EVP
Jose Aguila Grapilon Eastern Visayas 1997-1999 Leonard De Vera, representing the Eastern Mindanao region,
(Biliran) completed the first rotational cycle.

Arthur D. Lim Western 1999-2001


Thus, it committed two inaccuracies. First, it erroneously
(Zambasulta) Mindanao
reported that "only governors of the Western Visayas and
Eastern Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as to elect its own EVP. Ergo, the Court and the Special Committee
Executive Vice President." Second, it erroneously considered are correct in ruling that said region is given the right to elect
Central Luzon and Bicolandia as having had two terms each in its EVP either for the term 2009-2011 or the term 2011-2013.
the First Rotational Cycle, when their second service was for the
Second Rotational Cycle. And second, that the Special Committee’s Report is accurate
would also find support in finding that, at that time, IBP Eastern
The unfortunate fact, however, is that the erroneous statements Mindanao was also one of the only two remaining IBP regions
of the Special Committee were used as bases for the eligible to field its candidate as EVP. Again, I now conclude that
recommendation that "either the governor of the Western the Special Committee was correct in excluding the term of
Visayas Region, or the government of the Eastern Mindanao Atty. De Vera as a complete turn in favor of IBP Eastern
Region should be elected as Executive Vice-President for the Mindanao.
2009-2011 term."
For one, it was undisputed that Atty. Leonard De Vera, though
These conclusions were seconded by Justice Brion: elected as EVP, was removed from office and was not able to
assume office as President. This, according to the Court in
It is to be noted that, the December 14, 2010 ruling itself has its Velez, is an ‘unfortunate’ and ‘supervening event’ which
imperfections that deepened the deviations from the rotation rendered it impossible for Atty. De Vera to assume the IBP
system instead of setting the system right. For one, it Presidency. Thus, in view of the peculiarity of the circumstances
completely failed to take into account the Court’s ruling in surrounding the said removal, it is but fair for the Special
Velez. Also, the Court erroneously adopted the Special Committee not to consider Atty. De Vera’s term as a complete
Committee’s incomplete computation of the presidential turn in favor of IBP Eastern Mindanao.
rotational cycle. Instead of counting the cycle from the
presidency of Atty. Eugene Tan of Western Visayas in the 1989- This is in consonance with the principle enunciated earlier that
1991 term as Bar Matter 491 dictated, the Court counted the a turn in the IBP leadership would only be complete if the
rotation from the Central Luzon Presidency in the 1991-1993 region would have an EVP for the immediately preceding term
term. This mistaken premise led the Court to conclude that and then later assume the position of IBP President. Since Atty.
only the Governors of Western Visayas and Eastern Mindanao De Vera was not able to assume the Presidency, his election
regions had not yet had their turn as EVP so that the choice of cannot be considered as a complete turn in favor of IBP Eastern
EVP for 2009-2011 term should be solely confined to them. Mindanao. Again the Court and the Special Committee are
(Emphasis supplied) correct in ruling that the Eastern Mindanao Region has the
right to elect the EVP either for term 2009-2011 or the term
Again, I beg to disagree. After a circumspect review of the 2011-2013. This paved the way for the election of Roan Libarios
antecedents that attended the controversies subject of these as EVP for the term 2009-2011.
administrative matters, to my mind, there was no mistake, and
hence, I support the accuracy and correctness of the findings of As regards IBP-SLR, it completed its turn not when Atty.
the Special Committee, as adopted by the Court, based on the Vinluan became EVP for the 2009-2011 term because he was
following reasons: not able to assume presidency, but during the term when Raul
Angangco became EVP for the term 1993-1995 and eventually
First, as discussed earlier, Atty. Tan was elected as ACTING assumed the IBP Presidency during the term 1995-1997 term. It
PRESIDENT who, as stated in Section 11 of the IBP By- is likewise for these reasons why IBP-SLR is, therefore, excluded
Laws35 and Section 8 of Rule 139-A,36 had served only for the and disqualified from running for the position of EVP for the
unexpired portion of what could have been the term of Atty. term 2011-2013. Incidentally, this also answers the third issue
Drilon, representing the IBP Greater Manila Region. To raised in this case.
reiterate, Atty. Tan served only for the remainder of a term
which should have been the turn of IBP Greater Manila Region Pondering on this logic for inclusion and exclusion in the
from which Atty. Drilon belongs and not that of Western computation for purposes of the rotation, I find more reasons
Visayas. It is likewise significant to note that the remainder of to adhere to the accuracy of the findings of the Special
the said term is still part of the previous term which, technically, Committee. On a more important note, it cannot be over-
is a term existing before Bar Matter No. 491 took into effect emphasized that the December 14, 2010 Resolution was based
and prior to the full implementation of the rotation by on the Report of a Special Committee specifically
exclusion scheme. commissioned to investigate, analyze and evaluate the brewing
controversies and intricacies surrounding the IBP elections and
To my mind, it is correct and most logical for the Special the IBP itself. The Committee had for its members retired
Committee to exclude Atty. Tan’s presidency as forming part of Justices of the Court with unquestionable competence and
the rotational process and consider Atty. Tanopo’s term as the knowledge on IBP rules and history and they arrived at their
beginning of the rotation. This likewise bolsters the fact that conclusion after receiving testimonies and pieces of evidence
Atty. Tan served only as an ACTING PRESIDENT in the interim adduced by the parties and after a careful and thorough
until the new rule on rotation of EVPs is implemented. Hence, evaluation and calibration of the facts.
the Western Visayas Region has not yet been accorded the turn
In his ponencia, Justice Mendoza asserts: It must be also noted that the Court predicated its Velez ruling
on this consideration: that "each of the nine IBP regions had
That the Court, in its December 14, 2010 Resolution, ordered already produced an EVP." However, as the records and history
the election of the EVP-IBP for the next term based on the of the IBP would reveal, during the time Velez was decided,
inaccurate report of the Special Committee is a fact. That NOT ALL of the nine IBP Regions had actually produced an EVP.
cannot be erased. As a consequence thereof, Libarios of IBP By readily adopting the conclusion in Velez that "the rotation
Eastern Mindanao is now IBP President.37 (Emphasis supplied) was completed," the ponencia disregarded the truth that, since
Bar Matter No. 491 or the implementation of the rotation by
Consequently, when the majority of the Court adopted the exclusion scheme, IBP Western Visayas never had an EVP.
ponencia of Justice Mendoza, as seconded by Justice Brion, it Similar thereto, the ponencia likewise failed to recognize that
will be etched in the history of this Court that, for the first time, this was reflected by this Court’s much later ruling in its
the Court admitted that it committed a enormous blunder or December 14, 2010 Resolution.
mistake of adopting the findings of the Special Committee – a
mistake which, to my mind, never existed at all. Nevertheless, whatever misinterpretations or misconceptions
were created by Velez, these were clarified by this Court’s
Also, by succumbing to the view that the Special Committee December 14, 2010 Resolution. In short, this Court had already
committed a mistake in its report, and that this Court erred in corrected the situation.
adopting the same in its December 14, 2010 Resolution, the
Court, in effect, declared that the 2011-2013 term of Atty. Separate Opinion of Justice Brion
Libarios of IBP Eastern Mindanao is null and void. Inevitably,
this Court, in ruling so, likewise declared that all the acts of In this view, I also wish to address some of the points raised in
Atty. Libarios, in the exercise of his authority as IBP President, the Separate Opinion of J. Arturo D. Brion, where he avers that
are likewise null and void and, hence, without force and the rulings of the Court in the December 14, 2010 Resolution
binding effect. This is clearly an absurd situation. were made in the exercise of the Court’s administrative
functions rather than its judicial or adjudicatory functions; that
Hence, in view of the foregoing, I find that there is no reason to the aforementioned resolution was made in the exercise of the
doubt, as does the ponencia and the Separate Opinion of Court’s power of supervision and not on the basis of its power
Justice Brion, the correctness of the conclusions reached by the of judicial review. Justice Brion also argues that being a
Special Committee. continuing regulatory process, rulings of the Court issued
under its supervisory power over the IBP are not cast in stone
Consequently, for the same reasons and considering the and remain open for review by the Court in light of prevailing
correctness and accuracy of the findings of the Special circumstances as they develop.
Committee, it is my opinion that, contrary to the position of the
ponencia on the second issue, the First Rotational Cycle is NOT In sum, the Separate Opinion insists that considering that the
yet done. December 14, 2010 Resolution involves the Court’s exercise of
supervisory powers over the IBP and not judicial matters, the
This is further bolstered by the fact the specific portion of the doctrine of immutability of judgments does not apply.
Velez ruling relied upon by the ponencia can be considered
effectively overturned by this Court’s December 14, 2010 I beg to disagree.
Resolution.
To my mind, the exercise of the Court’s supervisory power over
The Court’s conclusion in Velez that "the rotation was the IBP and its members is two pronged – meaning, it is
completed" is, to me, correct in a sense. In fact, this was the exercised either through the Court’s rule-making authority or
position I took and was one of the issues I discussed in my through its adjudicatory or judicial power. Indeed, one is
Dissenting Opinion in the Court’s December 14, 2010 distinct from the other. The Court’s rule-makingpower is
Resolution. However, in the said resolution, the majority, dynamic in the sense that the Court may change the rules
headed by then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and wholly concerning the IBP as it deems best, necessary, practical and
concurred in by Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo appropriate under the circumstances. On the other hand, the
D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. decisions arising from the Court’s adjudicatory or judicial
Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez and member-in-charge Jose power cannot be easily changed as they involve a resolution of
Catral Mendoza, decided to abandon this ruling in Velez and the contending rights of parties, which policy dictates should
adopt the findings of the Special Committee. Hence, to my attain finality and, at some point, must reach an end.
mind, pursuant to the principle that between two apparently
conflicting decisions, the latter prevails, I find that this specific I am of the opinion that in its December 14, 2010 Resolution,
part of this Court’s ruling in Velez had already been overturned. this Court exercised its adjudicatory functions as the issues in
Accordingly, this Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution should that case necessarily involved a question of who among the IBP
govern. Regions and candidates are eligible to serve as IBP EVP and
National President and a determination of whether there is a
necessity to impose disciplinary sanctions against some erring Also, the view set forth in the Separate Opinion to the effect
members and officers of the IBP. that decisions of the Court in relation to its supervision over
the IBP is still subject to review and change is unsettling. If this
As the title of the case would suggest, there were "brewing is true, then what will prevent the Court from setting aside or
controversies" which required the exercise not only of the amending a decision for or against a member of the bar or a
Court’s supervisory powers over the IBP but also the Court’s decision settling disputes as regards IBP election controversies
judicial power to settle actual case or controversies. By which were rendered ten or twenty years ago? Does this mean
controversy means a disagreement or dispute, a litigated that the Court may thereafter overturn itself and find Atty.
question, an adversary proceeding in a court of law, a civil Vinluan innocent of the accusations against him and declare
action or suit either at law or in equity, a justiciable dispute.38 It him actually fit to hold the position of IBP President for the
involves an antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side 2007-2009 term? Further, following the conclusions in the
and denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a Separate Opinion, may this Court, at any time, change its ruling
mere theoretical question or issue.39 in Bar Matter 491 rendered in 1989? That issues like these will
remain open for review by the Court, as insisted by the
Verily, in the said Resolution, the Court ordered the Separate Opinion, is, to my view, extremely disturbing.
amendments to Sections 31, 33 par. (g), 39, 42 and 43, Article
VI and Section 47, Article VIII, pursuant to its rule-making Moreover, in order to bolster the argument that rulings of the
power. However, these were merely incidental to the Court’s Court issued under its supervisory power over the IBP remain
adjudication of the brewing controversies in the IBP. open to review, the Separate Opinion cites that administrative
matters involving violations of ethical standards may be
In this case, there is no question that actual controversies and reviewed by the Court even years after the promulgation of the
concrete disputes were presented before the Court by factions decision or resolution upon a petition for clemency by the
with conflicting legal rights and interests pitted against each respondent. Further, said Opinion posits that there were cases
other, and demanding specific and conclusive reliefs. It must be when the Court has changed its rulings in administrative
remembered that these controversies originated from three (3) matters in instances where there was proof that the petitioner
separate protests related to IBP elections held in April 2007 and has reformed or suffered enough on account of his or her
an administrative complaint against erring officers and unethical conduct.
members. In particular, these protests were on: (1) the elections
for the Governor of the IBP Greater Manila Region which I find the foregoing analogy misplaced.
involved the adverse interests of Atty. Elpidio Soriano and Atty.
Manuel M. Maramba; (2) the elections for the Governor of the Cases calling for the exercise of this Court’s disciplinary powers
IBP Western Visayas which involved the adverse interests of over lawyers and judges belong to a separate genre. Once the
Atty. Cornelio P. Aldon and Atty. Benjamin Ortega on the one Court renders a decision in a disciplinary action against a
hand, and Atty. Erwin Fortunato on the other; and (3) the member of the bar, such member is either suspended,
elections for Governor of IBP Western Mindanao which disbarred or disciplined by some other means after the said
involved the adverse interests of Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto and decision becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the
Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic. On the other hand, the reglementary period for appeal or reconsideration. That the
administrative case was filed by Attys. Marcial M. Magsino, Court may thereafter mitigate the sanction imposed or grant
Manuel M. Maramba and Nasser A. Marohmsalic against Attys. clemency or reprieve to the erring bar member does not mean
Rogelio A. Vinluan, Evergisto S. Escalon, Bonifacio T. Barandon, that the decision finding him or her administratively liable did
Jr., Abelardo C. Estrada, and Raymund Jorge A. Mercado for not become final and executory.
professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath and acts
inimical to the IBP. The mitigation or grant of clemency does not mean that the
Court is changing its decision finding the bar member liable,
Needless to say, the foregoing cases involve assertions of legal rather it is an act of liberality and generosity on the part of the
rights of individuals in relation to crucial elective positions in Court upon a showing of reformation of the petitioner. The
the IBP on one side and denials thereof on the other. In mitigation of the sanction imposed or the grant of clemency by
resolving these warring interests, the Court had to evaluate and the Court is a matter or an issue entirely different from the
examine facts, interpret the rules governing the IBP, its issues involved in the administrative case finding the lawyer or
members and officers, recall and study the IBP’s history and judge liable. In a petition for clemency, the petitioner actually
structure, consider the report and recommendation of the admits the unethical behavior committed in the past and prays
Special Committee and rule on the rights and interests of the for the pardon of the Court based on facts and circumstances
IBP regions and concerned IBP officials and members – all of entirely different from his defenses in the administrative case
which were done by the Court not only as an act of supervision and which surface way long after the decision is rendered. In
over the IBP but, most importantly, to resolve the disputes fact, one of the requisites for a grant of judicial clemency or
among the parties. Thus, as far as these issues have been pardon is that there should be a final judgment.
settled and resolved by the Court, they became final and no
longer subject to review. Thus, it is not true those administrative matters involving cases
for unethical behavior of members of the bar do not become
final and executory and that the doctrine of immutability of can elect its EVP. All in all, the damage and prejudice to the
judgment does not apply to the same. Rather, the Court in members of the Western Visayas Region are unquantifiable.
effect affirms its decision but extends its liberality in
exceptional circumstances where there is proof that the erring More importantly, by declaring the EVP position open, the
bar member has changed his or her ways or has suffered majority takes a sudden, but aberrant, turn around and, ruled
enough from the consequences of the sanctions imposed. against the final and partially executed December 14, 2010
Resolution by correcting alleged MISTAKES in said judgment.
In view thereof, the doctrine of immutability of judgments This is a first.
clearly applies to this Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution.
One can only imagine the possible irreparable damage and
Conclusion prejudice to the Court and the judicial institution by the
rendition of what will be undoubtedly perceived as an
It must be recalled that in the 2006 Velez case, this Court has amendment to the core of what has been a final and partly
ruled that the rotation was already completed. However, in its, executed judgment. The December 14, 2010 Resolution is a
December 14, 2010 Resolution, this Court deviated from Velez fairly recent issuance. The integrity of the Court and the
and declared that only IBP Eastern Mindanao and Western stability of its decisions shall be under attack and scrutiny once
Visayas have not had their turn at the IBP leadership. Thus, the again due to the majority's admission that this Court
Court ruled that the rotation after all has not yet been committed mistakes in rendering the December 14, 2010
completed contrary to the ruling in Velez. Resolutions. This will be deeply unsettling and will prejudice
the stability and reliability of final judgments of the Court.
And now, after the December 14, 2010 Resolution had been
become final in February 2011 and partially executed, wherein To repeat, the essence of the principle of immutability of final
IBP Eastern Mindanao had already given and completed its judgments is that "once a judgment becomes final, it may no
turn, the majority reverted to the Velez ruling that the rotation longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is
is already complete; effectively depriving IBP Western Visayas meant to correct erroneous conclusions of law and fact."
of its clearly stated right pursuant to the December 14, 2010
Resolution. Verily, by following the opinion of the ponencia, the The members of the Court must strongly adhere to and respect
Court is now exposed, once again, to charges of FLIP- its final and executed decisions. To expose the decisions of this
FLOPPING. Court to the risk of being reopened or set aside any time would
simply make the decisions of this Court a mockery and a farce.
Because of the position now assumed by the majority, the If the Court itself will resurrect final and executed decisions,
Court would appear to be TRIFLING with the long-settled then who and what will stop parties and non-parties from
doctrine of immutability of judgments. In the process, all the following suit? The potential damage to the institution is
final decisions of the Court from its birth up to the present unthinkable.
would be amenable to another review and reversal. It opened a
Pandora’s box, and thus, permit the parties and worse, even Thus, I vote to deny the motion of IBP-SLR for lack of merit.
non-parties, in final and executed cases, to pray for the
reopening of literally hundreds of thousands of final and fully PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
implemented decisions on the pretext that this Court has Associate Justice
committed an ERROR in or has MISREAD said cases.
Footnotes
In its Resolution, the majority nullified and disregarded a 1
A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006, 345 SCRA 496.
critical part of the December 14, 2010 Resolution. In a
2
Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (Ret.), served as Chairperson and
departure from its former holding, the majority now rules that Justices Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.) and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.), as
Members.
the IBP-Western Visayas is not the only region that can vie for 3
Rollo, p. 3240.
IBP-EVP for the 2011-2013 term and that position of IBP EVP is 4
Id. at 3112.
now open to all regions. This is a nullification of the 5
Id. at 3454-3456.
unequivocal December 14, 2010 Resolution that "only IBP 6
Id. at 3475.
Eastern Mindanao and IBP Western Visayas are qualified to vie 7
Supra note 1.
for the EVP position" in the two remaining terms in the 8
Rollo, pp. 3569-3584.
rotation.
9
Id. at 3608.
10
Id. at 3616.
11
Decision, p. 13.
In retrospect, the Western Visayas Region was already deprived 12
G.R. No. 91486, September 10, 2003, 410 SCRA 419.
of its right to have an elected EVP who will eventually assume 13
363 Phil. 225 (1999).
the IBP Presidency from 1990 when the rotation of the EVP 14
G.R. No. 45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238
started up to the present time or for more than THIRTY YEARS. 15
G.R. No. 55771, November 15, 1982, 118 SCRA 273.
With the new cycle, said region may even have to wait for 18 16
Id. at 3240.
years more which is the total period for a new cycle before it
17
Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128967, May 20, 2004, 428
SCRA 586, 599.
18
G.R. No. 13071, May 19, 1999, 307 SCRA 394, 398-399. (IBP), and the already confused IBP electoral history - is to
19
G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 & 120954, July 12, 2001, 361 SCRA order an election for the EVP position for the 2011-2013 term
150. open to all regions and thereby recognize the start of a new
20
Id. at 165-166.
rotational cycle for the JBP pursuant to the December 14, 2010
21
October 6, 1989, 178 SCRA 398.
22
Composed of former Justice Felix Q. Antonio, as Chairperson, and
amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-laws.
former Justices Efren I. Plana and Bienvenido Ejercito, as member, per
October 19, 1989 Resolution of this Court. As a pro-active response of the Court to clear the seeds of
23
Selected members of the Judiciary were designated as Chairpersons confusion that has plagued the IBP and to stress the need for
and Members of the Board of Election Commissioners for each of the continuing study and consultations between the Court and the
nine (9) IBP Regions, wherein Justice Reynato Puno (then of the Court
IBP on what is best for the organization, I propose the creation
of Appeals) was designated National Coordinator.
of a new continuing IBP Committee in the Court to generally
24
The following voted in favor of the December 14, 2010 Resolution:
Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Teresita J. handle the IBP's affairs; to study and suggest
Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. recommendations; to take the lead and initiative in efforts
Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr. Jose Portugal Perez and Jose Catral concerning the JBP; and to troubleshoot whatever problems
Mendoza. may occur, instead of creating a special committee whenever
25
Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 17. an JBP problem arises.
26
Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo v. Sps. Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January
21, 2010, 610 SCRA 590, 602.
27
G.R. No. 160506, June 6, 2011, 400 SCRA 650, 409-410.
The IBP
28
G.R. No. 176596, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 309, 326-327.
29
No. L-35469, October 9, 1987, 154 SCRA 593, 597. I begin with a brief background of the organizational structure
30
Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 17. of the IBP, the official organization of all Philippine lawyers
31
Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the (now numbering about 50,000) whose names appear in the Roll
Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010, 632 SCRA 727, 761.
of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.1 The IBP is divided into nine
32
Supra note 1, at 398.
(9) geographic regions, namely: "Northern Luzon, Central
33
In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, December 14, Luzon, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia, Greater Manila, Western
2010, 638 SCRA 1, 27, 35-36. Visayas, Eastern Visayas, Western Mindanao and Eastern
34
Id. at 15. Mindanao."2
35
Section 11. Vacancies. - Except as otherwise provided in these By-
Laws, whenever the term of office or position, whether elective or Each of these regions is subdivided into Chapters and is
appointive, is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a
represented by a Governor elected by delegates from among
vacancytherein shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the term.
36
Section 8. Vacancies. — x x x Whenever the term of an office or
the member-Chapters of each region.3 These nine (9)
position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein Governors constitute the BOG which governs and has general
shall serve only for the unexpired term. charge of the IBP’s affairs and activities.4 Aside from the
37
Decision, p. 18. Governors, the other national officers of the IBP are: the IBP
38
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 379 (9th ed., 2009). President, the EVP, the National Secretary, the National
39
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120567, March 20, 1998, 287 Treasurer, and the heads of the National Committees.5
SCRA 672.

The IBP President, the EVP and the Governors hold office for
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
two (2) years, from July 1 of their first year until June 30 of their
second year in office.6 After their election to the BOG, the
BRION, J.: members elect from among themselves the new EVP who –
previous to the recent December 14, 2010 amendments –
I concur with the conclusion reached by Justice Jose Catral automatically and expressly served as the IBP President for the
Mendoza that the IBP-Western Visayas is not the only region next term.7
that has not been chosen by the Board of Governors (BOG) for
the post of Executive Vice President (EVP) in the current The IBP President is the Chief Executive Officer of the IBP. He
rotational cycle, and cannot therefore automatically claim the presides over all meetings of the BOG.8 The EVP, on the other
EVP position for the 2011-2013 term. hand, exercises the powers, functions and duties of the IBP
President during the latter’s absence or inability to act, and
I dispute the positions in Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.'s performs such other functions and duties the IBP President and
Dissent relating to the nature of the rulings of this Court in the BOG may assign to him. The EVP, as an incumbent
administrative matters, particularly his application of the Governor, is a voting member of the BOG.9
doctrine of immutability of judgments, the strict application of
the Rules of Court in administrative matters, and all his other The Controversy
arguments proceeding from these premises.

The current controversy10 before us directly followed and is


The best and most responsible recourse for the Court to take related to an earlier controversy – the election of the Governor
under the circumstances - taking into account its constitutional for the IBP-Western Visayas for the 2011-2013 term. This earlier
supervisory authority over the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
controversy posed the question of how the required rotation of regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis.
the post of Governor should be applied to the IBP member- The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their
Chapters in that region. respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the
We resolved this earlier IBP-Western Visayas controversy President with the consent of the Board. x x x
through our December 4, 2012 Resolution in the present
Administrative Matter.11 We held that all the chapters in a The Executive Vice President shall automatically become
region shall have the equal opportunity to compete for the President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall
position of Governor during one rotational cycle and can only rotate among the nine Regions. [emphases ours; italics
serve once during that cycle; every winning Chapter shall be supplied]
excluded after serving its term during the cycle, and shall be
eligible to serve as Governor only in the next rotational cycle. 12 In its December 14, 2010 Resolution in the present
Administrative Matter,13 the Court further amended Section 47,
In contrast with the earlier local IBP-Western Visayas problem, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws by deleting the provision on the
the current problem affects the IBP at the national level as it election of the President considering that the "IBP no longer
raises the issue of who should be eligible for election as EVP for elects its President" since "the EVP automatically succeeds the
the current 2011-2013 term. This EVP post, incidentally, is still President at the end of his term."14 The provision, as further
vacant for the reasons explained below. amended, now reads:

The eligibility issue surfaced after IBP-Southern Luzon Sec. 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the
intervened in the present Administrative Matter with the Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President,
position that the election for the post of EVP for the current and nine (9) regional Governors. The Executive Vice President
2011-2013 term should now be open to all regions. shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of
Governors from among themselves, by the vote of at least five
IBP-Western Visayas opposes the IBP-Southern Luzon’s (5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President
position and maintains that under the IBP’s prevailing rotation for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
by exclusion rule, IBP-Western Visayas is the only region that Treasurer of the Board of Governors.
has not been chosen by the BOG for the post of EVP in the
current rotation cycle, and should thus automatically hold the The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be
EVP position for the 2011-2013 term. penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of
the offender from election or appointment to any office in the
At stake in these opposing positions is not only the EVP IBP.15 (italics and emphasis supplied)
position for the current 2011-2013 term, but the IBP Presidency
for the 2013-2015 term under the IBP’s unexpressed rule on Interestingly, this new provision – while intending an automatic
succession. At a deeper level, however, and from the succession to the Presidency – does not expressly so provide.
perspective of IBP history and its best interest, the issue is best
expressed as: a. The Elements of the amended Section 47, Article VII of the
IBP By-Laws Broken down to its components, Section 47, as
Should the Court now recognize the start of a new rotational amended, contains the following elements:
cycle pursuant to the December 14, 2010 amendment of the
IBP By-laws and thereby start a new rotational cycle with a 1. The IBP shall have a BOG consisting of nine (9) regional
clean slate and unburdened by the confused electoral records Governors, and its national officers shall be the President, the
of the past? EVP, the Secretary, and the Treasurer, with each member of the
BOG serving as ex officio Vice-President for their respective
This formulation poses complicated issues of interpretation, IBP regions.
history, objectives and best interests, and requires a bold and
decisive solution from this Court. 2. The EVP shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the BOG
from among themselves, by the vote of at least five (5)
The Primary Governing Law Governors.

The logical starting point of this consideration is the source 3. Any violation of the rotation rule shall be penalized by
from where the present problem can be traced – Section 47, annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender
Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter No. from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.
491. The provision states:
Elements (1) and (3) do not materially figure in, nor do they
Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the contribute to, the controversy. The problem, as has happened
Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President in the past, relates to the element of rotation where its manner
to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) is the disputed issue.
b. Some Questions and Answers held every other year. The election was a two-tiered process.
First, the Delegates from each region chose by secret plurality
A first basic question that should be answered is: what position, vote, not less than two nor more than five nominees for the
according to the IBP By-Laws, should rotate? position of Governor for their Region. The names of all the
nominees, arranged by region and in alphabetical order, were
The previous version of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By- written on the board within the full view of the House, unless
Laws (as amended by Bar Matter No. 491) provides the ready complete mimeographed copies of the lists were distributed to
and express answer – the Presidency should rotate among the all the Delegates. Thereafter, each Delegate, or, in his absence,
nine (9) regions. his alternate voted for only one nominee for Governor for each
Region. The nominee from every Region receiving the highest
number of votes was declared and certified elected by the
In other words, a rotation previously required that all nine (9)
Chairman.17 (citations omitted)
regions, through their respective Governors, shall at some time
during a rotational cycle take their "turn" as IBP President. This
directive was by the express and direct wording of the By-Laws The Governors elected as described above constituted the
and could not thus be simply disregarded; it was the House of Delegates that directly elected the National President
Presidency that must rotate among the regions, subject only to and Vice President.
the "as much as practicable" qualifier.
c.ii. Bar Matter No. 491
In other words, the previous rule on rotation was considered
from the prism of the Presidency, not from the prism of the The direct election system was changed after the 1989 IBP
EVP. This requirement for presidential rotation stood firm until national election that was marred by massive irregularities. The
its amendment under the Court’s December 14, 2010 matter was brought to this Court and was docketed as Bar
Resolution cited above. Matter No. 491 which the Court resolved on October 6, 1989.
The ruling, made pursuant to the Court’s constitutional
The new amendment now requires that "the EVP shall be supervisory authority over the IBP, introduced sweeping
elected on a strict rotation basis by the BOG from among electoral reforms in the election of the IBP national officers.
themselves." This means that the EVP position should rotate
among the nine (9) regions. Whether the EVP will be the Under this ruling, the Court:
President in the next term, the present By-Laws do not
expressly state but this is the intent expressed by the Court in (1) annulled the results of the 1989 national elections because
its December 14, 2010 Resolution. of the massive irregularities;

Thus, the rotation rule should now be considered from the (2) abolished the direct election of national officers by the
prism of the EVP, not from the prism of the Presidency; it is House of Delegates;
now the EVP that must be counted, considered and assured.
The rotation of the Presidency is now only a subsidiary (3) restored the former system of having the IBP President and
consideration that must bow to the primacy of the EVP’s the EVP elected by the BOG from among themselves, as well as
rotation. the right of automatic succession by the EVP to the Presidency
upon the expiration of the IBP President’s two-year term; and
c. Historical Perspectives
(4) reinstated the rotational rule.18
How the IBP and the Supreme Court have actually applied the
rotation requirement is interesting and, to some extent, c.iii. The Rotation System
confusing.
The Court explained in Garcia v. De Vera19 the rationale for the
c.i. Evolution of the IBP Electoral System rotational rule, as follows:

An overriding consideration in looking at the rotational rule The changes adopted by the Court simplified the election
and its application is its origin since rotation has not process and thus made it less controversial. The grounds for
consistently been the rule in the IBP. disqualification were reduced, if not totally eradicated, for the
pool from which the Delegates may choose their nominees is
The system of electing IBP Governors and the choice of diminished as the rotation process operates.
national officials by the BOG came with the original IBP By-
Laws in 1973.16 The direct system that then prevailed has been The simplification of the process was in line with this Court's
described as follows: vision of an Integrated Bar which is non-political and effective
in the discharge of its role in elevating the standards of the
Before, members of the Board were directly elected by the legal profession, improving the administration of justice and
members of the House of Delegates at its annual convention
contributing to the growth and progress of the Philippine Table No. 1
society. [emphasis, italics and underscore ours]
Elected Governors Region
Another Court ruling put it more bluntly and succinctly: the
rotational rule was primarily instituted "in order to give all the Conrado V. Posadas Northern Luzon
regions and chapters their respective turns, each for a term of
Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr. Central Luzon
two years, to have a representative in the top positions, with
the aim of restoring the non-political character of the IBP and Yolanda Q. Javellana Greater Manila
reducing the temptation of electioneering for the said posts."20
Francisco B. Santiago Southern Luzon
The Court made the rotational rule under Bar Matter No. 491 Mariano M. Sibulo Bicolandia
operational under the following terms:
Benedicto H. Alo Eastern Visayas
4. At the end of the President’s two-year term, the Executive Eugene A. Tan Western Visayas
Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of
President. The incoming Board of Governors shall then elect an Elias B. Lopez Eastern Mindanao
Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position
Macabangkit B. Lanto Western Mindanao
of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9)
IBP regions. One who has served as President may not run for
election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election The Board elected from among themselves on January 28, 1990
until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) Eugene A. Tan of Capiz, Western Visayas, as IBP President,
regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation and Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr. of Pangasinan, Central Luzon as
shall begin anew.21 EVP. The official records of the IBP indicate that Atty. Tan
served as IBP President only from January 28, 1990 to April
In other words, while it was the Presidency that was expressly 1991.23 Atty. Tanopo succeeded Atty. Tan, initially as Acting
rotated, the rotation was made operational in the election of President from the latter’s remaining April to June 1991 term,
the EVP because of the rule on automatic succession, and subsequently as President in his own right from 1991-1993
as the 2nd IBP President in the presidential rotational system.
To reflect the reinstatement of the rotational system and the
other desired responses to the 1989 election irregularities, the In these lights, the rotational cycle should be counted from the
Court under Bar Matter No. 491 ordered the amendment of time of Bar Matter No. 491, when the Court provided for the
Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws so that it read as rotational system and the rule on automatic succession, and
quoted above. As an interim measure, the Court also called for the election of the IBP President and EVP for the
designated an interim caretaker board22 that conducted the 1989-1991 term. This term constituted the first "turn" in the
special elections for the Governors of the nine (9) regions. cycle. Part of this term, of course, was under a caretaker, as a
preliminary and preparatory measure under the developments
c.iv. The Operation of the Rotational System that spawned Bar Matter No. 491.

As envisioned, the elected Governors for the 1989-1991 term For easy consideration of how the Bar Matter No. 491 changes
chose the IBP President and the EVP among themselves and actually operated, the tabulation below shows the IBP election
thus started the implementation of the presidential rotational developments from the 1989-1991 term up to the present:
system. The members of the 1989-1991 BOG and their
represented regions were:
Table No. 224

PIBP Term President Executive Vice President

1989-1991 1. Eugene A. Tan 1. Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr.


Western Visayas Central Luzon
a. Justice Felix Antonio served as Interim Caretaker (Oct.
19, 1989-Jan. 27, 1990)
b. Pres. Tan resigned in April 1991
c. EVP Tanopo served as Acting
President from April 1991-June 30, 1991

1991-1993 2. Numeriano G. Tanopo. Jr. 2. Mervin Encanto


Central Luzon Greater Manila Area
a. July 1, 1991-June 30, 1993 a. July 1, 1991-June 30, 1993

1993-1995 3. Mervin Encanto 3. Raul R. Angangco


Greater Manila Area Southern Luzon
a. July 1, 1993-June 30, 1995 a. July 1, 1993-June 30, 1995

1995-1997 4. Raul R. Angangco 4. Jose Aguila Grapilon


Southern Luzon Eastern Visayas
a. July 1, 1995-June 30, 1997 a. July 1, 1995-June 30, 1997

1997-1999 5. Jose Aguila Grapilon 5. Arthur Lim


Eastern Visayas Western Mindanao
a. July 1, 1997-June 30, 1999 a. July 1, 1997-June 30, 1999

6. Arthur Lim 6. Teopilo Pilanto, Jr.


Western Mindanao Northern Luzon
a. July 1, 1999-June 30, 2001 a. July 1, 1999-June 30, 2001

2001-2003 7. Teopilo Pilanto, Jr. 7. Jose Anselmo Cadiz Bicolandia


Northern Luzon a. July 1, 2001-June 30, 2003
a. July 1, 2001-June 30, 2003

2003-2005 8. Jose Anselmo Cadiz 8. Leonard de Vera


Bicolandia Eastern Mindanao
a. July 1, 2003-June 30, 2005 a. July 1, 2003-removed from office on May 13, 2005 as Governor
and EVP.
b. Replaced by Jose Vicente Salazar (Bicolandia) for the rest of the
term.

2005-2007 9. Jose Vicente Salazar 9. Feliciano Bautista


Bicolandia Central Luzon
August 2006-June 30, 2007 a. July 1, 2005-June 30, 2007
a. Jose A. Cadiz initially served as Holdover President
while case was pending (July 1, 2005 Aug. 2006)
b. Assumed office in August 2006 up to June 30, 2007

2007-2009 10. Feliciano Bautista 10. Rogelio Vinluan


Central Luzon Southern Luzon
a. July 1, 2007-June 30, 2009 a. July 1, 2007-June 30, 2009
b. Committed election irregularity in April 2009 but still served out
his term as EVP
c. In the Court’s ruling of Dec. 14, 2010, was declared unfit to
assume the Presidency for the 2009-2011 term.

2009-2011 11. Justice Santiago Kapunan 11. Roan Libarios


Caretaker Eastern Mindanao
a. served out the whole 2009-2011 a. July 1, 2009-June 30, 2011
term

2011-2013 12. Roan Libarios 12. Vacant - Still Disputed


Eastern Mindanao
a. July 1, 2011- Present
d. The Seeds of Confusion By this ruling, the Court itself appear to have planted the first
seed of confusion by separately considering the rotation
d.i. The First Seed of Confusion: system and the matter of presidential succession, thereby
disregarding the express wordings of the IBP By-laws.
The De Vera EVP Term
How and why Atty. De Vera was removed from the position of
Counting from the Presidency of Atty. Tan of IBP-Western EVP is an interesting tale that should be told in order to fully
Visayas, the presidential rotation followed the following pattern appreciate the Court’s ruling.
and succession:
In the 20th regular meeting of the BOG held on May 13, 2005
1. Western Visayas – Eugene Tan, 1989-1991 at the Waterfront Hotel in Cebu City, the BOG, by a 2/3 vote,
2. Central Luzon – Numeriano Tanopo, Jr., 1991-1993 resolved to remove Atty. De Vera as member of the BOG and
3. Greater Manila – Mervin Encanto, 1993-1995 as EVP under a Resolution that mainly cites "the untruthful
4. Southern Luzon – Raul Angangco, 1995-1997 statements, innuendos and blatant lies in public about the
5. Eastern Visayas – Jose Grapilon, 1997-1999 Supreme Court and members of the IBP Board of Governors"
6. Western Mindanao – Arthur Lim, 1999-2001 that Atty. De Vera uttered during the plenary session of the IBP
7. Northern Luzon – Teofilo Pilanto, Jr., 2001-2003 10th National Convention in relation to the decision of the BOG
8. Bicolandia – J. Anselmo Cadiz, 2003-2005 to withdraw the petition docketed as "Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Jose Anselmo Cadiz, et al. v. The Senate of the
Philippines, et al., SC-GR 165108." These acts were also cited as
leaving only one region – Eastern Mindanao – without any IBP
bases for the disbarment proceedings against Atty. De Vera.27
President from among the nine (9) regions; its turn as IBP
President in the 2005-2007 term would have completed the
rotation that Bar Matter No. 491 ushered in. The failure to In EVP De Vera’s stead, the BOG installed IBP Governor Pura
complete the rotation was not due to any defect in the system, Angelica Y. Santiago (of Southern Luzon) as EVP. Atty. De Vera
however, as Atty. Leonard De Vera was in fact elected the EVP immediately protested the election of Atty. Santiago who
for Eastern Mindanao for the IBP 2003-2005 term and would responded by voluntarily relinquishing her EVP position
have been IBP President for the 2005-2007 term, had he not through a letter to the BOG.
been removed as Governor and EVP very shortly before his
term as EVP ended. On June 25, 2005, the BOG elected IBP Governor Salazar of
Bicolandia as the new EVP to replace Atty. Santiago.28 With the
In Velez v. Atty. De Vera,25 the Court dealt with the issue of election of Atty. Salazar of Bicolandia, Eastern Mindanao
whether the replacement of Atty. De Vera as EVP should come effectively lost its chance to claim the IBP Presidency by
from Eastern Mindanao to preserve the rotation rule under succession in the 2005-2007 term. In this manner the system of
Section 47, Article VII, of the IBP By-Laws. The Court replied in rotation and succession then in place was derailed.
the negative and held that the rotation rule had been
completed despite the non-assumption of Atty. De Vera to the d.ii. The Second Seed of Confusion:
IBP Presidency. The ruling held that:
The Cadiz & Salazar Presidencies
In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP
which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. In the subsequent 2005-2007 IBP term (that should have been
The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of Eastern Mindanao’s turn in the Presidency), EVP Salazar did not
the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. immediately assume the post of IBP President (in light of the
Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of legal controversy that attended his assumption as EVP), and
IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the Atty. Jose Anselmo Cadiz served as holdover President until a
Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a new President was chosen and qualified.
consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in
Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws. The elected EVP for the 2005-2007 term – Atty. Feliciano
Bautista of Central Luzon (who should have been the EVP of an
In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with Eastern Mindanao President) – protested this arrangement,
since upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the leading the Court to rule in A.M. No. 05-7-19-SC in favor of
nine IBP regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the Atty. Cadiz as interim holdover President. The Court cited
rotation was completed. It is only unfortunate that the Section 49 of the IBP By-Laws that the outgoing IBP President
supervening event of Atty. de Vera's removal as IBP Governor shall continue to hold office until his successor is chosen and
and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP qualified. At the same time, the Court ordered the elected EVP
Presidency. The fact remains, however, that the rotation rule for the term to cease exercising the powers and functions of
had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. de the Acting IBP President.
Vera to the IBP Presidency.26 (emphases ours)
In Velez v. Atty. De Vera,29 the Court confirmed Atty. Salazar’s d.iii. Further Seeds of Confusion:
election by the BOG as EVP for the remainder of Atty. De Vera’s
2003-2005 term. As a consequence, Atty. Salazar of the The Ghosts of 1989 in 2009
Bicolandia Region succeeded to the Presidency for the 2005–
2007 IBP term (August 2006 to June 30, 2007) – the term that Under Atty. Bautista of Central Luzon’s Presidency in the 2007–
should have been Eastern Mindanao’s under the prevailing 2009 IBP term, Atty. Rogelio Vinluan of Southern Luzon was
systems of rotation and succession, had De Vera continued in elected as EVP without any accompanying controversy. In the
his 2003-2005 EVP post and succeeded to the Presidency in the regular course, EVP Vinluan would have assumed the
2005-2007 term. presidency for the 2009–2011 term, but another election
controversy intervened immediately before the end of the
The Court’s Velez conclusion was apparently not a very precise Bautista Presidency, i.e., immediately before EVP Vinluan
one; despite the disruption of the rotational system by Atty. De succeeded as President.
Vera’s removal as EVP and his consequent failure to succeed to
the IBP Presidency, the Court still concluded that with the In the election of 2009 (held on April 25, 2009), six members of
election of Atty. De Vera as EVP, each of the nine (9) regions the BOG were proclaimed without any question. They were:
had already produced an EVP so that the rotational cycle had Atty. Ma. Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa (Northern Luzon); Atty.
been completed. Ferdinand Y. Miclat (Central Luzon); Atty. Amador Tolentino, Jr.
(Southern Luzon); Atty. Jose V. Cabrera (Bicolandia); Atty.
This conclusion based its consideration from the prism of the Roland B. Inting (Eastern Visayas) and Atty. Roan Y. Libarios
EVP and in this sense ran counter to the express terms of (Eastern Mindanao).30
Section 47, as amended by Bar Matter No. 491. It could have
only been correct if it proceeded from the implied premise that The results of the election of the other Governors, namely:
with the election of Atty. De Vera to the EVP post in the 2003- Attys. Manuel M. Maramba of Greater Manila, Erwin M.
2005 term, the 2005-2007 Presidency could have been Eastern Fortunato of Western Visayas, and Nasser A. Marohomsalic of
Mindanao’s as Atty. De Vera should have succeeded to this Western Mindanao, were held in abeyance because of the
post had it not been for his removal from office. Based on this controversy that attended the Greater Manila election for
line of reasoning, the Court would still have impliedly counted Governor.
the rotation from the prism of the Presidency.

In resolving this controversy at the BOG level, certain officials in


Another implied premise in the Court’s conclusion was the the 2007-2009 term (who were still in office prior to the
counting of the rotational cycle from the Presidency of Atty. turnover to the officials for the incoming 2009–2011 term)
Eugene Tan in the 1989-1991 IBP term. While the basis for the acted on their own by holding a special meeting presided over
count was correct, the Court did not express its reason in the by EVP Vinluan, in defiance of the authority of 2007-2009 IBP
manner demanded by the wording of the IBP By-laws, as President Bautista. In this special meeting, they proclaimed
amended by Bar Matter No. 491. The Court – apparently Atty. Elpidio Soriano as the Governor for Greater Manila.31 This
looking at the operational side of the rotation and not at the move was contested and came to this Court under the present
requirements of Bar Matter No. 491amendement – expressed Administrative Matter – Magsino, et al. v. Vinluan, et al., A.C.
its conclusion in terms of the completion of the rotational cycle No. 8292 and A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC.32
with the election of Atty. De Vera as EVP.

In its Resolution of December 14, 2010, the Court, among


The Velez seed of confusion further grew when the Court, while others, confirmed the election of Governors Maramba,
recognizing the completeness of the rotational cycle with the Fortunato and Marohomsalic; called for a special election for
election of Atty. De Vera as EVP in 2003-2005, did not expressly the position of EVP for the 2009-2011 term; found 2007-2009
declare that a new rotational cycle for EVP started under the officials EVP Vinluan, and Governors Abelardo Estrada,
2005-2007 term of President Salazar. This declaration, had one Bonifacio Barandon, Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund Mercado
been made, would have effectively recognized that a new guilty of grave professional misconduct, and disqualified them
presidential rotation was to take place by succession starting from holding any IBP position in any future election; and
from the 2007-2009 term. declared EVP Vinluan unfit to hold his position and unqualified
to assume the office of IBP President for the 2009-2011 term.
With Velez as the basic premise and take off point, the choice The Court likewise designated retired Supreme Court Justice
for the EVP for the 2005-2007 IBP term should have been Santiago Kapunan as Office-in-Charge of the IBP until June 30,
open to all regions to usher in a new round of presidential 2011.33 The Court decreed as well the further amendment of
rotation in the 2007-2009 IBP term. This was the term of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, quoted above.
Atty. Feliciano Bautista as the 2005-2007 EVP, making him the
first EVP in the 2nd rotational cycle from the prism of the EVP
post, and, by succession, the first President in the 2nd
presidential rotational cycle in 2007-2009 IBP presidential term.
d.iv. The 2009-2011 Caretaker Term: power over justiciable controversies; it is not a dispute where
the Court stands as a third party to the problem, i.e., a third
The Ailing IBP party whom the disputing parties approached for an
authoritative ruling and who would then leave the parties to
The 2009-2011 can be described as ailing, not because of the themselves after it renders a ruling.
caretaker or Officer-in-Charge, retired SC Justice Santiago
Kapunan, but because of the unusual character of that term. The Court’s rule in the present controversy is closer to that of a
direct participant than to that of an impartial third party judge
The term of the regular President for the 2009-2011 term or arbitrator. In a very real sense, it is a participant as it cannot
should have started on July 1, 2009, but there was no President choose to dissociate or distance itself from the problem, from
in place at that time. Neither was there any Executive Vice the solutions, and from the consequences of the actions it has
President as none had been elected in light of the incomplete taken or will take on IBP matters.
composition of the BOG that resulted from the 2009 election
controversy. The ruling of the Court on the controversy was not The IBP is a mandatory association of Philippine lawyers and all
also immediately forthcoming. It was not until December 14, Members of the Court, as a requirement of the Constitution
2010 or seventeen (17) months of the 24-month term that the and of the judicial positions they hold, are members of the IBP.
Court resolution came. The same Philippine Constitution also imposes direct duties on
the Court; it exercises mandatory regulatory and supervisory
In the special election for the position of EVP for the 2009-2011 powers over the IBP as well as over all the members of the
term, Atty. Roan Libarios of Eastern Mindanao was elected. His organization. These are not simply powers but duties on the
election came a short six (6) months before the end of the part of the Court. Pursuant to this power and duty, the Court
2009-2011 term so that he was only effectively there to be has acted on the IBP By-laws and the regulation of its activities,
President for the 2011-2013 term. Not to be forgotten at this in fact, over the same problems that spawned the present
juncture is that the Court also further amended Section 47, controversy; in fact, the Court may have had its own lapses in
Article VII of the IBP By-Laws. resolving these problems.

This was effectively the situation under which EVP Libarios From these perspectives, the resolution of the present
took over as President on July 1, 2011. The IBP was not controversy is not simply a matter of direct application or
dead as the resurrected Lazarus of biblical fame had been, interpretation of the laws or of the rules utilizing legal as
but it was an ailing organization that continued to be norms, principles and rules of procedures. The present
bedeviled by earlier-planted seeds of confusion. controversy requires, more than anything else, the use of
foresight, wisdom, lessons learned from experience and history,
a good feel for the objectives and purposes of the IBP, and to a
d.v. The Libarios 2011-2013 Term:
large extent, a sense of mission for the organization and for the
nation that the IBP and all its members are sworn to serve.
Incomplete Normalcy
For these reasons, the various aspects of the present
The Libarios presidency was a period generally characterized by controversy ought to be examined closely without omitting or
a return to normalcy, except for the lingering uncertainty that glossing over any matter offered as a solution. It is in this spirit
the Western Visayas regional governorship controversy that the various options and even the positions taken by the
brought with it. The Western Visayas regional election, Dissent are examined below.
supposed to be held on May 7, 2011, was the subject of a
Temporary Restraining Order from the Court and no election
A. The First Option – to Adopt and Apply the Velez ruling.
was held on that day.

The first region to avail of its turn under the Bar Matter No. 491
This is the problem that was first mentioned in the opening of
rotational cycle, as shown by Table 2 above, was Western
this Separate Opinion as the controversy that ushered in the
Visayas with the election of Atty. Tan as President and Atty.
rotational issue, albeit at the local level and one that had since
Tanopo of Central Luzon as EVP. This starting point is as a
been resolved. On the heels of this resolved regional problem
given, having been the first election decreed under Bar Matter
came the present national rotational issue on who can run for
No. 491 without any expressed qualification or terms of
the EVP position for the 2011-2013 term.
limitation. Specifically, the Tan Presidency was never, impliedly
or expressly, considered a temporary or a transitional term
SOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS under Bar Matter No. 491. It was simply the starting point of
the presidential rotation that Bar Matter No. 491 established
At this point, a completely legalistic solution may leap out of and should likewise be considered as the starting point for
the recital of the laws involved and the attendant factual consideration in resolving the various aspects of the present
developments. The problem before the Court, however, is not a controversy.
controversy that a completely legalistic approach would fully
resolve. It does not involve the usual exercise of adjudicative
Under this premise, the first full round of rotation should have and 2013-15), all regions other than Central Luzon, Southern
been completed with the Presidency of Eastern Mindanao in Luzon and Eastern Mindanao, can compete for the 2011-2013
the 2005-2007 term, ushered in, under the rules on succession, EVP post. This is far from the completely open election that
by the election of Atty. De Vera of Eastern Mindanao as EVP for South Luzon advocates. Likewise, the EVP post should still be
the 2003-2005 term. Both the rules on succession and rotation open to six other regions, not only to Western Visayas.
would then have been totally satisfied under the original terms
of Section 47, Article VII of the By-laws, as amended by Bar Thus, both the Western Visayas and South Luzon positions
Matter No. 491. must fail if a properly viewed and understood Velez ruling
would be followed. To this extent, I concur with the ponencia of
The Velez ruling, unfortunately, only declared the rule on Justice Mendoza.
rotation completed and satisfied upon Atty. De Vera’s election
as EVP and omitted to state that it would have effectively I draw a limit however to the disposition of the present
ushered in Eastern Mindanao’s Presidency through succession Administrative Matter based on Velez ruling even if this ruling
in the following 2005-2007 term. Recall on this point that the is viewed and understood as discussed above. The simple
original By-laws expressly required that it was the Presidency, reason for this position is that a Velez-based disposition is not
not the EVP position that had to be rotated so that there was the best ruling that this Court can make because of the gaps
effectively a three-stage process leading to the rotation. First, and the seeds of confusion that Velez generated. These seeds
there is the election of the EVP, then his or her succession, and can only germinate and sow the wind with further confusion if
finally, the assumption to the presidency and rotation. Velez adopted by this Court. In other words, a disposition based on
only provided for the first stage and in this sense, was Velez is far from the wise, reasonable and sober ruling that the
incomplete in its terms and explanation. Court’s relationship with the IBP and its duties under the
Constitution demand.
The incompleteness, however, does not necessarily lead to the
invalidity of the Velez ruling as it was still partially correct, i.e., if B. The Second Option – Open the 2011-2013 EVP Election
the ruling would be understood in the sense that the 2005- Open to All Regions by Considering the Present Term of
2007 Presidency would have been an Eastern Mindanao turn Eastern Mindanao as the Completion of the Rotation that
that simply did not happen because of the removal of the duly Started in the 1989-1991 Term.
elected EVP for Eastern Mindanao in the previous 2003-2005
term. In other words, the De Vera election as EVP was a reality Despite the amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-
that could not be erased but was not only carried to Laws on December 14, 2010 mandating a rotation rule viewed
completion. from the prism of the EVP, the Court cannot ignore the reality
that prior to the present amendment (i.e., from 1989-1991 term
From this perspective, the EVP for the 2005-2007 term (i.e., the until December 2010), the prevailing rule was the rotation of
EVP who served under what would have been an Eastern the Presidency among the regions, i.e., the rotational rule must
Mindanao Presidency) can still be recognized as the Vice be considered from the prism of the Presidency and not of the
Presidency that ushered in the new presidential rotation that Vice-Presidency.
would have been served in the 2007-2009 term. This 2005-
2007 EVP and 2007-2009 President was Atty. Feliciano Bautista. This previous rule on rotation stood firm until its amendment
Under this view, the 2005-2007 EVP election should have been only on December 14, 2010 - way into Atty. Libarios’ EVP term
open to all regions as it was the EVP post that would have or only six months before his EVP term ended on June 30,
ushered in a new presidential rotation in the 2007-2009 IBP 2011.
term.

Note in this regard that prior to the present amendment, the


With the Bautista election as EVP in the 2005-2007 term and first rotational cycle would have been completed in the 2005-
his Presidency in 2007-2009 as the starting points, the IBP- 2007 term with the Presidency of Eastern Mindanao but no
Western Visayas’ position that it should automatically get the Eastern Mindanao Presidency actually came to pass. Note, too,
2011-2013 EVP post clearly fails. that separately from the rule on presidential rotation, the By-
Laws also provided for succession; the presidential rotation was
It must necessarily fail as – starting from Atty. Bautista of carried out through the succession of the previous term’s EVP
Central Luzon in 2005-2007 – only two other EVPs have been to the Presidency.
elected, namely: Atty. Vinluan of Southern Luzon (who would
have been disqualified as EVP were it not for the completion of Since Eastern Mindanao had not had its "turn" at the IBP
his term as such, and who was declared unfit to assume the Presidency (as the succession of its EVP did not take place) until
Presidency in the 2009-2011 term) and Atty. Libarios of Eastern the term of Atty. Libarios as President , the second option open
Mindanao for the 2009-2011 term. to the Court is to consider the first cycle of presidential rotation
completed only by the current Presidency of Atty. Libarios. This
The South Luzon position that the 2011-2013 should be open option proceeds from the following premises:
to all regions similarly fails. With Eastern Mindanao excluded
because it cannot serve successive presidencies (i.e., 2011-13
(1) Bar Matter No. 491 lays down the starting point of the IBP’s the 2011–2013 Eastern Mindanao Presidency, the balance
system of rotation from the prism of the Presidency under an should tilt in favor of the latter after considering:
arrangement that calls for the succession of the EVP to the
Presidency; and ● the wording of the IBP By-Laws prior to their amendment in
2010;
(2) these rules on rotation and succession prevailed until the
amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws on ● the nature and character of the irregularities, distortions and
December 14, 2010, decreeing the rotation of the EVP position uncertainties that the rotation system seeks to address;
but without any express reference to the rule on succession;
● the long term effects of a Court ruling giving primacy to the
(3) the recent amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP strict application to the rotation rule (already signaled by the
By-Laws should be interpreted prospectively so that it would Court’s December 14, 2010 ruling in the present Administrative
take effect from the 2011-2013 term – the first turn in the EVP Matter);
rotation; and
● the fairness that this Court accords to Eastern Mindanao by
(4) the Court would further amend the By-Laws to restore the its recognition of the turn of this Region in the IBP’s first
automatic succession of the EVP to the post of President rotational cycle; and
effective 2011-2013.
● the opportunity for a very smooth and seamless transition in
This option means that both the Presidency of Bicolandia (IBP the implementation of the newly amended Section 47; the
President Salazar) and the subsequent term of Central Luzon Court is now offered the unique opportunity of implementing
(IBP President Bautista) should be considered by this Court – if the amended Section 47 without the need for any disruptive
it were to really uphold fairness, the principles of Bar Matter transitional measures since the 2011-2013 EVP position is
No. 491, and the then prevailing terms of Section 47, Article VII vacant.
of the IBP By-Laws – to be aberrant developments for purposes
of the system of succession and rotation as they sidetracked With the terms of Attys. Salazar and Bautista disregarded for
what should have been these systems’ smooth and proper purposes of the rotational rule, President Libarios effectively
implementation. becomes the 9th President whose term completes one full
presidential rotation, where each region had been given a
To be sure, these intervening presidencies can possibly be "turn" at the Presidency. Thus, Bar Matter No. 491 – valid and
justified – from the non-rotational and practical perspectives – effective up to December 14, 2010 – has been completely
by the qualifier "as far as practicable" pointed out above; this complied with.
interpretation is, in fact, the only justification available to
support the Court’s actions in the election of Salazar as EVP B.1. A New Beginning under the Second Option.
and his succession to the Presidency in 2005-2007 term.

To start the next cycle of rotation from the prism this time of
The consequence though that cannot be denied under this the EVP position and to do this prospectively, the rotation must
view is that the 2011–2013 term of IBP President Libarios of start from the 2011-2013 term – the term immediately
Eastern Mindanao is that region’s only "turn" at the Presidency following the December 14, 2010 amendment, whose EVP still
and is thus the only turn that effectively completes the 1st needs to be elected. Automatic succession to the Presidency
presidential rotational cycle that started with IBP President Tan will likewise start but this will have to actually take place in the
in the 1989 –1991 term under Bar Matter No. 491. No rotation 2013-2015 term as succession speaks of a future event
can simply be complete unless all the regions have taken their reckoned from the effectivity of the EVP rotation in 2011-2013.
"turns" at the Presidency – the position that matters under the
terms of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws prior to 2010.
Thus, the choice of EVP who would serve with President
Libarios in the 2011-2013 term should be open to all regions,
Thus, while the Bicolandia 2005-2007 and Central Luzon 2007- except only for Eastern Mindanao which cannot serve as
2009 terms in the Presidency may find justification, for practical President for two (2) consecutive terms. This is the unique
purposes, under the cover of the above qualifier, they remain opportunity that is open to the Court as the present 2011-2013
aberrant terms because of their effects on the system of EVP position is vacant. Notably, no region would be prejudiced
succession and rotation, and should be simply disregarded for as all regions have at this point served their respective turns in
purposes of the rotational rule. Of course, these regions were the Presidency.
not in any way at fault; they simply followed the then current
Supreme Court rulings. But at this later point, when we already
To sum up the discussions above, the completion of one
act with the benefit of experience and hindsight, in a balancing
rotation through the "turn" of the 9th region to the Presidency,
test between the start of a new rotation cycle under the
and the start of a new system of rotation through the EVP
Bicolandia 2005-2007 presidency and a new beginning after
rotation, mean that:
● The 2011-2013 Presidency of President Libarios will end the election of Atty. Libarios as EVP for the 2009-2011 term. It
rotation of Presidency as decreed under Bar Matter No. 491. maintains that there has been no decision or resolution in the
Court’s history that annulled its previous final decision which
● The 2011–2013 term will signal and count as the start of the was not based on a motion for reconsideration filed within the
new rule on strict rotation of the EVP position; this will be the fifteen-day period to appeal the decision; the cases of Apo
first turn in the EVP rotation. Fruits and Keppel are not controlling since the parties therein
filed their motions for reconsideration within the fifteen-day
● Elections can be held without need of any special transitory period.
measures as the post of EVP for the 2011-2013 term remains
vacant. The Dissent’s concerns are more specifically outlined below.

● The 2011–2013 EVP should be chosen at large among the First, it argues that the petition for intervention filed by IBP-
remaining eight regions (i.e., excluding the region of the 9th Southern Luzon after the finality of the Court’s December 14,
President since this will be the first turn for the EVP position 2010 Resolution violates Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of
and since the Presidency should not come in succession from Court and settled jurisprudence on finality and immutability of
the same region). judgments. It asserts that the December 14, 2010 Resolution
became final and executory after the Court denied with finality
● The 2011–2013 EVP will automatically succeed to the position the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Elpido G. Soriano
of President for the 2013–2015 term (effectively the start of a on February 8, 2011. Thus, the Resolution is already immutable
new turn from the prism of the Presidency); the Court though and unalterable and intervention is barred.
still needs to put an automatic succession provision in place
after its deletion under the December 14, 2010 amendment. Second, the Dissent avers that the IBP-Southern Luzon and
Governor Joyas are estopped from questioning the Court’s
This conclusion is fully in accord with the conclusion of Justice December 14, 2010 Resolution considering that Governor Joyas
Jose Catral Mendoza, based on his parallel reasoning on the waited for more than one (1) full year after assuming the IBP-
matter. I submit that this is the most sound, fair, reasonable Southern Luzon Governor position before attempting to
and practical conclusion under the circumstances. reopen the final resolution of the Court.

To reiterate, it is fully in accord with and fully respects the Third, the Dissent contends that IBP-Southern Luzon and
rotation and succession systems that Bar Matter No. 491 Governor Joyas have no legal interest in the subject matter of
dictated, while at the same time seamlessly blending the old litigation or in the success of either of the parties, in violation
rule with the new terms of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By- of Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules Court. It notes that under the
Laws, as amended. factual circumstances of the present case, IBP-Southern Luzon
can no longer compete for the EVP position as it has already
had two elected EVPs in the current rotation; thus, neither IBP-
Most importantly, this option essentially fosters a fair result as
Southern Luzon nor Governor Joyas has any legal interest in
it has respected the right of all IBP regions to serve the EVP
the subject matter of the present case.
and the Presidency, and at the same time gives the IBP a fresh
start at another round of rotation with clearer terms. More than
all these, by its insistence on the rule of rotation and that all Fourth, the Dissent maintains that the Court’s December 14,
regions should serve their "turns," it signals the Court’s strong 2010 Resolution has already settled the question of who
commitment to the rotational rule. among the regions are entitled to compete for the EVP
position for the 2011-2013 term. The Court particularly decreed
in its ruling that either the governor of Western Visayas or
C. Refutation of Justice Velasco’s Dissent
Eastern Mindanao should be elected as EVP for the 2009-2011
term; the one not chosen for this term shall have his turn in the
The Dissent essentially posits that Western Visayas should 2011-2013 term. Considering that IBP-Eastern Mindanao
automatically be entitled to the 2011-2013 EVP position as the became the 8th region to have successfully secured a seat as
only region that has not served as EVP – a conclusion that no EVP for the 2009-2011 term (with Atty. Libarios’ election as EVP
less than this Court has recognized in its December 14, 2010 in the 2009-2011 term and his assumption to the Presidency
Resolution. It defends this position through the invocation of for the 2011-2013 term), the Dissent concludes that IBP-
technical arguments, particularly, the immutability of the Western Visayas is the only remaining region left to compete
Court’s judgment, estoppel, the impropriety of South Luzon’s for the EVP for the 2011-2013 term.
intervention, and finally, the correctness in computing the 1st
round of presidential rotation.
Fifth, the Dissent notes that for purposes of the rotation rule,
the appropriate reckoning point for the start of the present
The Dissent particularly emphasizes that intervenor IBP- rotation should be Atty. Tanopo’s election as EVP and not Atty.
Southern Luzon seeks to re-open and set aside the Court’s Tan’s election as President. It cites the Court’s ruling in Velez v.
December 14, 2010 Resolution that had long attained finality De Vera where the Court held that the rule on rotation by
and immutability and that has been partially executed with the exclusion particularly pertains to the position of EVP while the
automatic succession rule pertains to the Presidency. Thus, it in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules
maintains that for the process to be complete, one must first shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not
be elected as EVP for the current term before he or she can diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing
serve as President for the next term; this process must be laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed
satisfied in strict sequence before a specific IBP region is as statutes, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the
deemed to have completed its turn to the IBP leadership. The power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The
Dissent also notes that Atty. Tan’s term should not be counted Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter or supplement
against IBP Western Visayas for it would be unfair to consider the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the
his term of one year and three months (as a "transition admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
President") as equal to the supposed service of two years as
EVP and another two years as President as mandated by The above-quoted sections in both the 1987 and 1935
Section 47, Article VII of the IBP-By Laws. Constitution and the similarly worded provision in the
intervening 1973 Constitution through all the years have been
Finally, the Dissent emphasizes that under the rule of the sources of this Courts authority to supervise individual
immutability of judgment, the Court is duty-bound to: (1) members of the Bar. The term Bar refers to the collectivity of all
uphold its December 14, 2010 Resolution; (2) deny IBP- persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. Pursuant
Southern Luzon’s petition for intervention and declare IBP- to this power of supervision, the Court initiated the integration
Western Visayas as the only region qualified to file a candidate of the Philippine Bar by creating on October 5, 1970 the
for EVP for the 2011-2013 term. It emphasizes that exceptions Commission on Bar Integration, which was tasked to ascertain
to the doctrine of immutability of judgments do not obtain in the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar. Not long after,
the present case. In addition, the Dissent notes that there are Republic Act No. 6397 was enacted and it confirmed the power
no intervening developments after the finality of the December of the Supreme Court to effect the integration of the Philippine
14, 2010 Resolution rendering its execution unjust and Bar. Finally, on January 1, 1973, in the per curiam Resolution of
inequitable. this Court captioned In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar
to the Philippines, we ordained the Integration of the Philippine
These arguments are addressed in the same order they are Bar in accordance with Rule 139-A, of the Rules of Court, which
posed under the topical headings below. we promulgated pursuant to our rule-making power under the
1935 Constitution.
The doctrine of immutability of judgments does not apply
to the Court’s exercise of supervisorypowers over the IBP The IBP By-Laws, the document invoked by respondent De Vera
in asserting IBP independence from the Supreme Court,
The Dissent’s preoccupation and invocation of the principle of ironically recognizes the full range of the power of supervision
immutability of judgment apparently blinded it to the true of the Supreme Court over the IBP. For one, Section 77 of the
nature of the Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution that the IBP By-Laws vests on the Court the power to amend, modify or
Court issued pursuant to its constitutionally-mandated repeal the IBP By-Laws, either motu propio or upon
supervisory power over the IBP. Section 5, Article VIII of the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the IBP. Also in
Constitution mandates the Court’s power of supervision over Section 15, the Court is authorized to send observers in IBP
the IBP. This is the same power that the Court exercised in the elections, whether local or national. Section 44 empowers the
issuance of the rules on the Writ of Amparo, the rules on the Court to have the final decision on the removal of the members
Writ of Kalikasan, and the Rules of Court, among others. of the Board of Governors.

In Garcia v. De Vera,34 the Court held that that implicit in the On the basis of its power of supervision over the IBP, the
constitutional grant to the Supreme Court of the power to Supreme Court looked into the irregularities which attended
promulgate rules affecting the IBP (under Section 5, Article VIII the 1989 elections of the IBP National Officers. In Bar Matter
of the Constitution) is the power to supervise all the activities No. 491 entitled In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989
of the IBP, including the election of its officers. In ruling that Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines the Court
that it had jurisdiction over the election of officers of the IBP, formed a committee to make an inquiry into the 1989
the Court elaborated on the constitutional history and the elections. The results of the investigation showed that the
extent of the Court’s supervisory powers over the IBP, as elections were marred by irregularities, with the principal
follows: candidates for election committing acts in violation of Section
14 of the IBP By-Laws. The Court invalidated the elections and
directed the conduct of special elections, as well as explicitly
The authority of the Supreme Court over the IBP has its origins
disqualified from running thereat the IBP members who were
in the 1935 Constitution. Section 13, Art. VIII thereof granted
found involved in the irregularities in the elections, in order to
the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning
impress upon the participants, in that electoral exercise the
the admission to the practice of law. It reads:
seriousness of the misconduct which attended it and the stern
disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to restore
SECTION 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to the non-political character of the IBP and reduce, if not entirely
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure eliminate, expensive electioneering.
The Court likewise amended several provisions of the IBP By- 6. What is the liability, if any, of respondent Atty. Rogelio A.
Laws. First, it removed direct election by the House of Vinluan under the administrative complaint for "grave
Delegates of the (a) officers of the House of Delegates; (b) IBP professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath, and acts
President; and (c) Executive Vice-President (EVP). Second, it inimical to the IBP" filed against him by Attys. Marcial Magsino,
restored the former system of the IBP Board choosing the IBP Manuel Maramba and Nasser Marohomsalic?36
President and the Executive Vice President (EVP) from among
themselves on a rotation basis (Section 47 of the By-Laws, as On the basis of the findings of the Special Investigating
amended) and the automatic succession by the EVP to the Committee, the Court resolved the various controversies
position of the President upon the expiration of their common relating to the elections in the various chapters of the IBP;
two-year term. Third, it amended Sections 37 and 39 by declared EVP Vinluan unfit to hold his position and unqualified
providing that the Regional Governors shall be elected by the to assume the office of IBP President for the 2009-2011 term;
members of their respective House of Delegates and that the designated retired Supreme Court Justice Santiago Kapunan as
position of Regional Governor shall be rotated among the Officer-in-Charge of the IBP, and decreed the amendment of
different chapters in the region. Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39, 42 and 43, Article VI and Section
47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws.
The foregoing considerations demonstrate the power of the
Supreme Court over the IBP and establish without doubt its All these rulings and directives rested on the Court’s
jurisdiction to hear and decide the present controversy. supervisory authority and were made in the exercise of the
[emphasis supplied] Court’s administrative rather than its judicial or adjudicatory
functions, and were made in the exercise of its power of
Pursuant to this supervisory power, the Court created a Special supervision, not on the basis of the power of judicial review.
Investigating Committee to look into the "brewing The Dissent apparently did not consider that in the exercise of
controversies in the IBP elections, specifically in the elections of these supervisory powers, the Court’s issuances did not involve
Vice President for the Greater Manila Region and Executive strictly judicial matters that become final and immutable under
Vice President of the IBP itself and any other election strict adjudication rules.
controversy involving other chapters of the IBP, if any,
including the election of the Governors for Western Mindanao In blunter terms, the Court’s exercise of supervision is a
and Western Visayas."35 continuing regulatory process; the rulings issued under this
power are not cast in stone as the Dissent inaccurately portrays;
The investigation focused specifically on the following issues or these rulings remain open for review by the Court in light of
controversies: prevailing circumstances as they develop.

1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article V of An example of this ongoing regulatory supervision by the
the IBP By-Laws which provides: Court over the IBP is Section 77 of the IBP-By Laws, which gives
the Court the power to amend, modify or repeal the IBP By-
"SEC. 31. Membership. – The membership (of Delegates) shall laws, either motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the
consist of all the Chapter Presidents and, in the case of Board of Governors, as the Court did in fact, in Bar Matter No.
Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice- 491 and subsequently in its December 14, 2010 Resolution
Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as when it ordered the amendment of Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39,
the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice-President is 42 and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-
already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Laws.
Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be
elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of This continuing regulatory supervision by the Court over the
the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be IBP is also exemplified by the way the Court dealt with the
members ex officio of the House, without the right to vote." series of "brewing controversies" that beset the IBP starting
with: (1) the 1989 IBP elections in Bar Matter No. 491; (2) the
2. Who was validly elected Governor for the Greater Manila effects of the abbreviated term of EVP De Vera in Velez v. Atty.
Region? De Vera , (3) the brewing election controversies in various
chapters of the IBP as well as the elections for the EVP for the
3. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Visayas 2009-2011 term that resulted in the issuance of the December
Region? 14, 2010 Resolution; (4) the issues with respect to the election
of Governor for IBP-Western Visayas the outcome of which was
the issuance of the Court’s December 14, 2012 Resolution that
4. Who was validly elected Governor for Western Mindanao
clarified that the rotational rule was one by exclusion, and,
Region?
finally, (5) the present Administrative Matter on the question of
who is qualified to nominate a candidate for the position of
5. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice President for the EVP for the 2011-2013 term. Notably, the controversies starting
next term? from the 2009 IBP incidents have been subsumed under one
consolidated A.M./A.C. docket number.
The dynamic character of the Court’s power of supervision over In the recent case of Talens-Dabo v. Judge Arceo,40 the Court
the IBP is also evident from the manner the Court treats lifted the penalty of disqualification from re-employment in
administrative matters brought before it. government imposed on Judge Hermin E. Arceo (imposed on
him in the Court’s Decision of July 25, 1996 finding him guilty
An administrative matter (such as the one filed before the of gross misconduct and immorality). The Court so acted after
Court in A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC and A.C. No. 8292, subject matter Atty. Arceo demonstrated that he has "sufficiently shown his
of the December 14, 2010 Resolution) that is entered in the remorse and reformation after his dismissal from the service
Court’s docket is either an administrative case (A.C.) or an meriting the Court’s liberality." Similarly, in Castillo v.
administrative matter (A.M.) submitted to the Court for its Calanog,41 the Court granted former Judge Manuel M.
consideration and action pursuant to its power of supervision.37 Calanog’s petition for clemency and compassion and lifted the
penalty of disqualification from public office for immorality
An administrative case (A.C.) involves disciplinary and other after the Court found him to be "sincerely repentant" three
actions over members of the Bar, based on the Court’s years after the Court’s July 12, 1991 Decision dismissing him
supervision over them arising from the Supreme Court’s from the service.
authority to promulgate rules relating to the admission to the
practice of law and its authority over the Integrated Bar. Closely In sum, the Dissent’s invocation of the doctrine of immutability
related to A.C. cases are the Bar Matter (B.M.) cases particularly of judgments with respect to the Court’s December 14, 2010
those involving admission to the practice of law.38 Resolution is clearly misplaced. To reiterate, the Court’s
issuances on administrative matters pursuant to its exercise of
An administrative matter (A.M.) is a matter based on the its regulatory supervision over the IBP does not become final
Supreme Court’s power of supervision: under Section 6, Article and immutable as in ordinary adjudicated cases; it is always
VIII of the Constitution (the Court’s administrative supervision subject to continuing review by the Court, guided by the
over all courts and the personnel thereof); under Section 8 dictates of the Constitution, laws and regulations, as well as by
(supervision over the JBC); and under Section 5(5) (supervision policies the Court deem necessary, practicable, wise, and
over the IBP).39 appropriate in light of prevailing circumstances.

In administrative matters concerning the IBP, the Court can The Rules of Court are not strictly
supervise the IBP by ensuring the legality and correctness of observed in administrative matters
the exercise of its powers as to means and manner, and by
interpreting for it the constitutional provisions, laws and I cannot agree with the Dissent’s position that IBP Southern
regulations affecting the means and manner of the exercise of Luzon’s petition for intervention is barred by Section 2, Rule 19
its powers. The Court, of course, is the final arbiter in the of the Rules of Court that allows intervention at any time
interpretation of all these instruments. For this precise reason, before final judgment. If judgment does not really become final
the IBP By-laws reiterates that the Court has the plenary power in the sense understood in the adjudicatory sense, then the
to amend, modify or repeal the IBP By-laws in accordance with admission of an intervention should always be subject to the
policies it deems, not only consistent with the Constitution, Court’s wise exercise of discretion. There, too, is the well-
laws and regulations, but also as may be necessary, practicable settled rule that the Dissent conveniently failed to mention:
and appropriate in light of prevailing circumstances. technical rules of procedure (i.e. the rules on Intervention in the
Rules of Court) are not strictly applied in administrative
It is in this sense that no entry of judgment is made with proceedings such as the present case. In Office of the Court of
respect to administrative matters brought before the Court Administrator v. Canque,42 we pointedly stated:
because special circumstances may affect or radically change
the directives or policies the Court may decree or adopt. In Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
concrete terms, the Court may change, suspend or repeal these applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due
directives or policies if its finds their application to be contrary process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
to law or public policy or inappropriate under the prevailing judicial sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not required.
circumstances. [Emphasis supplied]

That administrative matters before the Court are not subject to Another misplaced argument is the Dissent’s invocation of our
the doctrine of immutability of judgments also find emphasis in ruling in Chavez v. PCGG43 and Looyuko v. Court of
administrative matters involving violations of ethical standards Appeals44 which brings to mind an apple and oranges
(such as the Code of Professional Responsibility or Code of comparison. These cited cases, although indisputably correct in
Judicial Conduct) which are reviewed by the Court years after their particular setting, cannot be compared with the present
the promulgation of the decision or resolution upon a petition matter because they are adjudicated civil cases governed
for clemency by the respondent. In many instances, the Court strictly by the Rules of Civil Procedure on intervention.
changes its rulings upon proof that the petitioner has reformed
or suffered enough on account of his or her unethical conduct. Beyond the rule on stability of our jurisprudence and
procedural technicalities, the Dissent should appreciate the
relationship of the Court to the IBP and the role that the
Constitution has assigned to the Court, all of which have been earlier, thus giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled
mentioned and discussed elsewhere in this Separate to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.
Concurring Opinion.45 Likewise, it should have considered the
importance of the administrative matter before us - issues that Significantly, laches is not concerned with mere lapse of time;
may determine future elections of the IBP. In these lights, the fact of delay, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute
insistence on the use of strict procedural rules cannot but be laches. In Chavez v. Perez,48 we emphasized that the hallmark
regarded as resort to petty arguments that only waste the time of the application of laches is a question of inequity or
and attention of this Court. To use our usual phraseology on unfairness in permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
these kinds of arguments, rules of procedure should not be asserted, thus:
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are only used to
help secure, not override, substantial justice. Note that we have The doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public policy
made these rulings even in the exercise of our adjudicative which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of
power where stricter rules apply. In Ginete v. Court of stale claims, and is principally a question of the inequity or
Appeals,46 we said: unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be laches; each case is to be determined according to its particular
viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of circumstances. The question of laches is addressed to the
justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to
Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even perpetrate fraud and injustice. [emphasis supplied]
disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter
even that which this Court itself has already declared to be In the present case, the Dissent failed to cite any instance of
final, as we are now constrained to do in the instant case. unfairness or inequity in allowing the alleged belated
intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon and Governor Joyas. At any
xxxx rate, as mentioned above, the Court’s issuances, on
administrative matters pursuant to its exercise of its regulatory
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford supervision over the IBP (such as the Court’s December 14,
every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and 2010 Resolution) do not become final and immutable as in
just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of ordinary adjudicatory cases; they are always subject to
technicalities. Time and again, this Court has consistently held continuing review by the Court. In filing the petition for
that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override intervention, IBP-Southern Luzon and Governor Joyas are
substantial justice. [Emphasis supplied.] merely asking for proper guidance from the Court pertaining to
the issues involved with the IBP elections for EVP for the 2011-
Similarly, in de Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,47 we had occasion to 2013 term by invoking the Court’s regulatory supervision over
state: the IBP.

The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth IBP-Southern Luzon and Governor Joyas have legal interest
guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and in the subject matter of litigation
chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be
mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial I disagree with the Dissent’s claim that IBP-Southern Luzon or
discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering justice have Governor Joyas has no legal interest in the subject matter of
always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by litigation that would justify their intervention.
the norm that when on the balance, technicalities take a
backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way Contrary to the Dissent’s view, they have (as all the other eight
around. Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language regions of the IBP) a direct and immediate interest in the
of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to the realities of the proper implementation of the rotational rule with respect to
situation." [Emphasis supplied.] the position of EVP for the 2011-2013 term, in the same
manner that this Court and all its Members have similar
Estoppel by laches cannot be applied to IBP-Southern Luzon interests on the matter. In fact, this Court’s ruling on the proper
and Governor Joyas implementation of the rotational rule for the EVP for the 2011-
2013 term will directly and immediately impact on IBP-
The Dissent’s invocation of the doctrine of estoppel by laches Southern Luzon which will either gain or lose the opportunity
on the part of IBP-Southern Luzon and Governor Joyas is for direct and meaningful participation in IBP affairs as a result
erroneous. Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for of the direct legal operation and effect of the Court’s
an unreasonable and unexplained length time to do that which, determination in the present case. Section 47 of the IBP By-
by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done laws, as amended, guarantees this legal interest when it
provides that "the Executive Vice President shall be elected on
a strict rotation basis by the Board of Governors from among Tan did not go through any prior election as EVP. Under this
themselves, by the vote of at least five (5) Governors. premise, Velez could not have been a totally incorrect ruling. As
I mentioned above, it is a ruling that can be put to good use
At any rate, the Court, has recognized exceptions to Section with a proper and correct understanding of what Bar Matter
Rule 19, in the interest of substantial justice, as reflected in the No. 941 provided for.
following ruling:
Thus, in this limited sense, I agree with the ponencia that the
The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is Court effectively opened a new round of rotation for the EVP
intended to make the powers of the Court fully and completely position, to start after the 2003-2005 term. The new rotation
available for justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive cycle for EVPs, preparatory to the presidential rotation that Bar
adjudication of rival claims overriding technicalities on the Matter No. 941 expressly required, started with the 2005-2007
timeliness of the filing thereof.49 election of Atty. Bautista of Central Luzon as EVP. From the
Velez view, the presidential rotation that Bar Matter No. 491
Prior to the 2010 amendment of Section 47, Article VII of required came to pass as the first turn in 2nd rotational cycle
the IBP By-laws, the rotation rule should be considered when Atty. Bautista succeeded to the IBP Presidency in 2007-
from the prism of the Presidency and not EVP 2009 term.

I disagree with the dissent’s unqualified position that the In sum, following Velez to its logical consequence and
rotation rule pertains to the position of EVP and not the observing the principle of exclusion, all regions other than
position of IBP President. As the above discussions fully Central Luzon, Southern Luzon and Eastern Mindanao can
explained, the previous version of Section 47, Article VII of the compete for the EVP post for the 2011-2013 term. This
IBP By-laws expressly required that the Presidency shall rotate conclusion, of course, contradicts the IBP-Western Visayas’ wish
among the nine (9) regions. The Dissent’s view that a to have the 2011-2013 EVP position handed to it unopposed in
completed turn strictly requires election as EVP for the current a golden platter.
term (two years of service as EVP) and then service as President
for the next term (plus another two years as IBP President), is The Court’s December 14, 2010
not supported by the plain import of the wordings of previous Resolution did not overturn the Velez ruling
version of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws that merely
required that all the nine (9) regions, through their respective I likewise take exception to the Dissent’s position that the
Governors, shall at some time during the rotation take their Court’s December 14, 2010 Resolution effectively overturned
turn as IBP President. Under this system, it is the Presidency the Velez ruling. To be sure, there never was any statement in
that must be counted, considered and assured and the election the December 14, 2010 ruling that the Velez ruling is incorrect.
or effective rotation of the EVP is only a part of ensuring the
rotation of the Presidency because the two positions are Even if there had been, this Court – at this point – is not
inextricably linked by the element of succession. In this sense, powerless to correct whatever misimpressions there might have
any rotation in the EVP post under the previous Section 47 was been because of the confusing rulings heretofore issued.
a subsidiary consideration that must bow to the primacy of the
rotation of the Presidency. It is to be noted that, the December 14, 2010 ruling itself has its
imperfections that deepened the deviations from the rotation
Again, contrary to the Dissent’s view, the Court’s ruling Velez v. system instead of setting the system aright. For one, it
Atty. De Vera that the first rotation was completed with the completely failed to take into account the Court’s ruling in
election of Atty. De Vera as EVP is not a totally incorrect ruling; Velez. Also, the Court erroneously adopted the Special
it is merely an incomplete ruling, but one that can nevertheless Committee’s incomplete computation of the presidential
be put to good use with the correct appreciation and rotational cycle. Instead of counting the cycle from the
understanding of what Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws Presidency of Atty. Eugene Tan of Western Visayas in the 1989-
originally provided. 1991 term as Bar Matter No. 491 dictated, the Court counted
the rotation from the Central Luzon Presidency in the 1991-
As previously discussed, the first region to avail of its turn in 1993 term. This mistaken premise led the Court to conclude
Bar Matter No. 491 was IBP-Western Visayas with the election that only the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
of Atty. Tan as President and Atty. Tanopo of Central Luzon as Mindanao regions had not yet had their turn as EVP so that the
EVP. This was the very first election under Bar Matter No. 941 choice of EVP for the 2009-2011 term should be solely
and the import of this amendment would be trivialized if the confined to them.
first election conducted under it would not fall under its rule.
To be sure, Bar Matter No. 941 never stated, expressly or The continued wranglings about the Court’s past rulings – as
impliedly, that this first election was to be an interim measure; exemplified by the Dissent’s own objections – constitute the
it simply decreed that there shall be presidential rotation and very reason why a clean slate, justified by a reasonably sensible
called for an election. From this perspective, Velez could not be reading of the By-laws, should now be made, to free up the IBP
wrong in counting the election of Atty. Tan as President as the from any and all seeds of confusion that may linger. In other
first turn in the presidential rotational cycle, even if President
words, rather than continue to find fault with past rulings Consistent with the above principles and as a pro-active
and with one another, let this Court now accept that a new response that the Court can offer the IBP and the public who
rule on rotation is upon us, and start to apply and depend on lawyers for their legal needs, the Court must now
implement this new rule without any reservations or recognize the continuing need for study and consultations with
qualifications arising from past rulings this Court made. the IBP on what is best for the organization. The Court cannot
This is the wisest, most reasonable and most undertake its constitutional duties alone. The IBP itself-of which
practical ruling we can make under the present the Members of this Court are themselves a member - should
circumstances. always actively be consulted as the party directly and
immediately affected by the rulings and actions of the Court.
The transitory and continuing nature
of the Court’s regulatory supervision Towards this end, I propose the creation of a new and
over the IBP allows for a correction continuing IBP Committee in the Court to generally handle
of the erroneous December 14, 2010 the JBP's affairs; to study and suggest recommendations;
Resolution and does not amount to a to take the lead and initiative in efforts concerning the IBP;
flip-flop and to troubleshoot whatever problems may occur, instead
of creating a special committee whenever IBP-related
As previously discussed, the Court’s issuances pertaining to its problems arise.
regulatory supervision over the IBP does not become final and
immutable as ordinary cases, as it is always subject to ARTURO D. BRION
continuing review by the Court. This notion debunks entirely Associate Justice
the Dissent’s charge of flip-flopping should the Court
reconsider its December 14, 2010 Resolution. Footnotes
1
See: IBP website, available online at http://www.ibp.ph/history.html
In light of the role, participation, powers and duties that the (last visited on February 27, 2012).
2
See: Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Court and its Members hold with respect to the IBP, the worst
in In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the
move that this Court can make at this point is to be Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC and A.C. No.
irretrievably wedded to decisions and rulings the Court has 8292, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 1, 55.
rendered in the past. Rather, as the Supreme Tribunal in the 3
IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Section 37.
land with specific powers duties and powers imposed no less 4
IBP By-Laws, Article VI, Section 41.
than the Constitution, it should now act wisely, with foresight 5
IBP By-Laws, Article VII, Sections 47-48.
and with due regard to the lessons of the past; it should seek
6
IBP By Laws, Article VII, Section 49.
to restore rational consistency in the future rulings affecting
7
IBP By-Laws, Article VII, Section 47. Supra note 2.
8
IBP By-Laws, Article VII, Section 50(a).
the IBP. In fact, the Court should itself strive not to be a part of 9
IBP By-Laws, Article VII, Section 50(b). See Dissenting Opinion of
the problem; it cannot but be in the IBP’s stage as a participant Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. in In the Matter of the
in a constitutionally-designed play, but it must act more as a Brewing Controversies in the Election in the Integrated Bar of the
actor/director keenly keeping a close and critical eye on the Philippines, supra note 2.
events and ready to lead, guide and act with measured 10
Note that, as shown in the discussions, the IBP has had a series of
firmness if and when the play gets out of hand. problems, coming one after another, subsumed under the title
"Brewing Controversies" docketed as A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC – IN THE
MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS OF
The essence of judicial and jurisprudential life is growth and
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES and A.C. No. 8292 – ATTYS.
greater understanding of our efforts and their results, MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA AND NASSER
particularly for our constituencies and the laws we interpret. MAROHOMSALIC, Complainants, versus ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN,
For as long as we do not flip-flop on the same case, thus ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S.
confusing not only the public but the same parties who have ESCALON AND REYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, Respondents.
previously applied our rulings and decisions, we should not
11
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC and A.C. No. 8292, December 4, 2012.
hesitate to backtrack and correct our actions in the past,
12
Ibid.
13
Supra note 2.
particularly, if our new directions better serve the objectives 14
Id. at 14.
and purposes of the laws we interpret and the greater public 15
Id. at 15.
good. After all, one of the Court’s own venerated doctrine - 16
See In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the
stare decisis et non quieta movere - itself recognizes that Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Bar Matter No. 491, October 6, 1989,
rulings are "not cast in stone for upon a showing that 178 SCRA 398.
circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great 17
Garcia v. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 27,
benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of 43-44.
stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside."50
18
Ibid.
19
Id. at 44-45.
20
In Re: Compliance of IBP Chapters with Adm. Order No. 16-2007,
D. Creation of a Permanent IBP Committee in the Supreme Letter-Compliance of Atty. Ramon Edison C. Batacan, A.M. No. 07-3-13-
Court. SC, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 1, 7-8; emphases, underscore and
italics ours.
21
In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated participate in the democratic processes for choosing its leaders.
Bar of the Philippines, supra note 17, at 198. We should start to take judicial notice of the existence of many
22
Justice Felix A. Antonio was designated as Interim Caretaker and he other organizations of lawyers that now exist that do not
served as such from October 19, 1989 to January 27, 1990.
experience these earthshaking struggles for power. For
23
Atty. Eugene Tan resigned as IBP President as a result of charges of
favoritism or discrimination in the hiring of officers and employees in
instance, there is the WILOCI, Philippine Bar Association,
the IBP and extravagant and irregular expenditure of IBP funds filed by Alternative Law Group Network, Free Legal Assistance Group
several staff members of the IBP via a letter-complaint with the Chief and many others.>Perhaps, there may be other ways to
Justice. In Bar Matter No. 565, dated October 15, 1991, the Court found integrate the bar that will more effectively and efficiently meet
the actuations of Atty. Tan as constituting grave abuse of authority and its purposes, further democratize its leadership and will not
serious misconduct in office which would have warranted his removal consume so much time and energy on the part of the Court.
from office, but in view of the fact that he had earlier tendered his For instance, lawyers may choose to join an existing
resignation as IBP President and his term of office already expired on
organization which in turn will be part of a council or coalition
June 30, 1991, the Court imposed upon him the penalty of severe
censure. See Villaruel v. Grapilon, Adm. Case No. 4826, January 27,
that comprises the new integrated bar. I am sure that there
1999, 302 SCRA 138, 158-159. may be other more creative suggestions coming from the
24
Term with controversy. present membership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. I
25
Supra note 16. am of the opinion that We should now engage the Integrated
26
Id. at 811. Bar of the Philippines to fundamentally rethink its structure.
27
Id. at 775-776.
28
Id. at 779.
Thus, in addition to the functions also mentioned by Justices
29
Supra note 16.
30
Supra note 2, at 24-25. Jose Catral Mendoza and Arturo Brion, the Committee on IBP
31
Ibid. Affairs should also have as its continuing mandate regular
32
Ibid. reviews of the alternative modalities to integrate our bar. In the
33
Id. at 38-39. spirit of inclusiveness, the members of the profession should be
34
Supra note 17. encouraged, under our supervision, to give full and
35
Supra note 2. unadulterated feedback and proposals. The IBP should submit
36
Ibid.
to the Committee a viable and methodical plan to get these
37
See: Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in De
inputs. Perhaps it can even tap the law schools to assist in
Castro v. Judicial And Bar Council, G.R. Nos. 191002, 191032, 191057
and A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 666. getting these feedback and proposals from their alumni. The
38
Ibid. IBP should then submit a Committee Report on the Views of
39
Id. the Profession on integrating the bar to this Court in order that
40
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, November 20, 2012. future reforms will be properly guided.
41
A.M. RTJ-90-447, December 16, 1994, 239 SCRA 268.
42
A.M. No. P-04-1830, June 4, 2009, 588 SCRA 226, 236.
We must remember that the present mode of integrating the
43
G.R. No. 13071, May 19, 1999, 307 SCRA 394.
44
G.R. Nos. 102696,102716,108257 & 120954, July 12, 2001, 361 SCRA
bar was initiated by this Court in its per curiam Resolution
150. dated January 9, 1973. Consistent with the views already
45
See pp. 24-26 of this Separate Concurring Opinion. expressed, I agree that it is also our duty to ensure that the
46
G.R. No. 127596, September 24, 1998, 292 SCRA 38. organizational structure to accomplish the integration of the
47
326 Phil. 182 (1996). bar continues to be responsive.
48
G.R. No. 109808, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 73, 80.
49
Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February
In the meantime, I vote to:
13, 2008, 545 SCRA 92.
50 Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Commission
(1) DECLARE that the election for the position of Executive Vice
on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010, 619 SCRA 585,
President of the IBP for the 2011 to 2013 term open to all
595.
regions;

CONCURRING OPINION (2) CREATE a Committee for IBP Affairs with the functions
mentioned in the opinions 'of Justice Mendoza and Justice
Brion and this reflection; and
LEONEN, J.:

(3) AMEND sections 47 and 49, article VII of the IBP By-Laws as
I concur with the ponencia of Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and
recommended in the main ponencia of Justice Jose Catral
the concurring opinion of Justice Arturo Brion. In addition, I
Mendoza.
wish to put on record the following observations.>The
statement of events from the main, concurring and dissenting
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
opinions in this case accurately chronicle the crises of
Associate Justice
leadership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines at various
periods in its history. These leadership crises may have
alienated many ordinary practitioners from either taking full
advantage of the benefits of an integrated bar or wanting to

Вам также может понравиться