De Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag

A lawyer who petitions the President to set aside by decree a final Supreme Court decision commits gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution, warranting disciplinary action, but a reprimand rather than a harsher sanction may be imposed where the lawyer withdraws the petition, apologizes, and demonstrates appreciation of the separation of powers principle.

The case is an administrative disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Esteban T. Bumanlag, initiated by Ricarda Gabriel de Bumanlag. The respondent had previously been found guilty of gross immoral conduct and suspended from the practice of law for two years by the Court's decision of September 24, 1973, with the Court imposing a lesser penalty of suspension instead of disbarment by majority vote. After multiple motions for reconsideration were denied, the respondent sought executive intervention to overturn the final judicial decision, prompting the Court to require him to show cause why he should not be subjected to further disciplinary action.

The respondent, Esteban T. Bumanlag, had been found guilty of gross immoral conduct and suspended from the practice of law for two years by the Court's decision of September 24, 1973, the Court imposing a lesser penalty of suspension instead of disbarment by majority vote, while a minority composed of Justices Castro and Makasiar voted for disbarment. He filed several motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied by the Court's Resolutions of November 20, 1973, December 19, 1973, January 9, 1974, and October 30, 1974.

After his motions for reconsideration were denied, the respondent wrote a petition to the President of the Philippines requesting that the President "promulgate a decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme Court be set aside and that your humble self be allowed to become an active member of the New Society." This petition was forwarded to the Clerk of Court on March 31, 1975, through a 1st Indorsement dated February 21, 1975 from then Assistant Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, requesting comment and/or appropriate action. On June 16, 1975, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish the Office of the President with copies of the Court's decision and resolutions denying reconsideration, and required respondent to show cause within ten days from notice why he should not be subjected to further disciplinary action for making false statements and misrepresentations in his petition to the President — specifically for claiming he had been deprived of due process contrary to the facts of record, and for gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution in asking the President to set aside by decree the Court's decision.

On June 18, 1975, respondent forwarded a letter through Assistant Executive Secretary Zamora withdrawing his earlier petition, stating he had "come to realize that I made a big mistake by making said letter to you, Your Excellency, because the Honorable Supreme Court may believe that I may be challenging the decision which is already final and executory and as such do not observe the doctrine of protocol of separation of power(s)." In his Explanation of July 23, 1975, respondent cited his immediate withdrawal of the letter, acknowledged that "the Chief Executive is bereft (of) any authority to set aside or modify the decision of this Honorable Supreme Court," and begged for apology with assurance that nothing of the sort would be repeated. He also stated that his motions for reconsideration "were only denied by the Clerk of Court without any comment whatsoever," inferring this led him to file his petition with the President.

Respondent served his two-year suspension, as duly noted in the Court's Resolution of November 7, 1975. Since respondent had apologized for his "big mistake" and acknowledged the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the Court was disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality.

• Withdrawal and Apology: Respondent argued that he had "immediately" withdrawn his letter asking for the President's intervention and had come to fully realize that the Chief Executive is bereft of any authority to set aside or modify the decision of the Supreme Court, begging for apology with full assurance that nothing of the sort would be repeated.
• Procedural Complaint: Respondent inferred that he was led to file his petition with the President because his motions for reconsideration "were only denied by the Clerk of Court without any comment whatsoever."

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Whether respondent committed gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution by asking the President to set aside by decree the Court's final decision suspending him from the practice of law.
• Appropriate Sanction: Whether respondent should be subjected to further disciplinary action beyond the two-year suspension already served, and if so, what sanction is appropriate.
• Validity of Minute Resolutions: Whether respondent's complaint that his motions for reconsideration were denied only by the Clerk of Court without comment has merit.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Yes. Respondent committed gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution in asking the President to set aside by decree the Court's decision, contrary to the fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
• Appropriate Sanction: A reprimand with warning was imposed. The Court viewed respondent's misconduct with liberality because he withdrew his petition, apologized, and acknowledged the separation of powers principle, but warned that any future transgression would be severely dealt with.
• Validity of Minute Resolutions: No. The Court explained that minute resolutions, upon being duly adopted and recorded, are validly transmitted to parties by and upon the signature of the Clerk of Court, who is duly authorized to do so.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Under the fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a decision of the Supreme Court may not be set aside by the President. Respondent's petition to the President asking him to promulgate a decree setting aside the Court's suspension order demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution. Additionally, respondent made false statements and misrepresentations in claiming he had been deprived of due process, contrary to the facts of record as stated in the Court's decision. The Court required him to show cause for both forms of misconduct.
• Appropriate Sanction: Since respondent apologized for his "big mistake," withdrew his petition to the President, and demonstrated appreciation that the Chief Executive lacks authority to set aside or modify the Court's decision, the Court was disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality. A reprimand with warning of severe action on any future transgressions was administered, the Court taking into account respondent's "unenviable record." The two-year suspension originally imposed had already been served, as noted in the Court's Resolution of November 7, 1975.
• Validity of Minute Resolutions: The Court addressed respondent's complaint by citing People vs. Catolico and earlier cases, explaining the time-honored usage that minute resolutions, summons, and processes of the Court, upon being duly adopted and recorded, are transmitted to interested parties by and upon the signature of the Clerk of Court, who is duly authorized to do so. With thousands of resolutions approved monthly, requiring the Chief Justice and members' signatures on all such papers other than decisions would unduly tax their time and attention to the prejudice of the administration of justice. Respondent's remark exposed his lack of appreciation or disregard of this established practice.

• Separation of Powers — The fundamental principle, enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, that a decision of the Supreme Court may not be set aside by the President. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that respondent's request for the President to overturn a final judicial decision by decree constituted gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution, warranting disciplinary action against a member of the bar.
• Authority of the Clerk of Court to Transmit Minute Resolutions — Minute resolutions, summons, and processes of the Court, upon being duly adopted and recorded, are validly transmitted to interested parties by and upon the signature of the Clerk of Court, who is duly authorized to do so. The Court invoked this doctrine to reject respondent's complaint that his motions for reconsideration were improperly denied because they were acted upon only by the Clerk of Court, explaining that requiring the Chief Justice and members to sign all such papers would unduly tax their time and attention to the prejudice of the administration of justice.

• "the Chief Executive is bereft (of) any authority to set aside or modify the decision of this Honorable Supreme Court" — Drawn from respondent's own Explanation, this passage encapsulates the constitutional principle of separation of powers that the Court relied upon in finding gross ignorance of the law, while also explaining why the Court treated respondent with liberality after his acknowledgment.
• "minute resolutions, summons and processes of the Court, upon being duly adopted and recorded are transmitted to the interested parties by and upon the signature of the Clerk of Court who is duly authorized to do so." — This passage defines the Court's time-honored practice regarding the transmission of minute resolutions through the Clerk of Court, addressing respondent's procedural complaint and establishing the validity of such transmissions as an established judicial usage.

• People vs. Catolico, 38 SCRA 389 — Cited as supporting authority for the Court's explanation that minute resolutions are validly transmitted through the Clerk of Court's signature, as part of the time-honored usage of the Court. The case was followed to reject respondent's complaint that his motions for reconsideration were improperly denied.

• 1935 Constitution and 1973 Constitution — The Court relied on the principle of separation of powers enshrined in both constitutions to hold that the President cannot set aside a Supreme Court decision by decree, and that respondent's request to the President constituted gross ignorance of the law and the Constitution.

Makasiar, Muñoz-Palma, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.