Malabed vs. De La Pena

A lawyer who misrepresents the existence of a required certificate to file action, uses offensive language in pleadings, and willfully accepts government employment despite a prior dismissal carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment is guilty of gross misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Adelpha E. Malabed filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The dispute arose from a civil case for quieting of title filed by the respondent on behalf of his client, where Malabed was the opposing party. Prior to this administrative case, the respondent had been dismissed from his position as a judge in a 1994 Supreme Court Resolution, which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office.

Adelpha E. Malabed filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña, charging him with dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complaint arose from the respondent's representation of Fortunato Jadulco in a civil case for quieting of title (Civil Case No. B-1118) where Malabed was the opposing party. Malabed alleged that respondent used a Certificate to File Action referring to a different complaint filed by her brother against Jadulco, meaning no valid certificate was filed prior to the institution of the civil case. She also claimed respondent failed to furnish her counsel with a copy of the free patent covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730, which she alleged was fabricated, as confirmed by certifications from the DENR and the Registry of Deeds. Furthermore, Malabed accused respondent of conflict of interest for notarizing a deed of donation executed by her family and later representing opposing occupants of the lot, and of conniving with RTC Judge Enrique C. Asis to secure favorable rulings. Finally, Malabed charged respondent with grave misconduct for defying the accessory penalty of his prior dismissal as a judge by working as Associate Dean and Professor at a government institution, the Naval Institute of Technology (NIT) - University of Eastern Philippines College of Law, and receiving salaries therefor.

Respondent denied the charges in his Comment. He claimed he used a certification issued by the Lupon Chairman on May 9, 2001, for the quieting of title case. He asserted that the free patent title was attached to the records and furnished to complainant's counsel. He argued that notarizing the deed of donation was unrelated to the case against the occupants, and that matters regarding Judge Asis's rulings should be addressed to the judge. Regarding his employment at NIT College of Law, respondent admitted accepting the positions but claimed he was no longer connected, rendering the issue moot. He claimed his designation was temporary, he received only honorarium, and he had furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and MCLE Office a copy of his designation without objection.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner noted the foul language used by respondent in his pleadings, describing complainant's counsel as "silahis" and accusing complainant of cohabiting with a married man. The Commissioner found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for using an improper Certificate to File Action, failing to furnish the title, and violating the prohibition on reemployment in government. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to suspend respondent for one year.

• Dishonesty and Misrepresentation: Complainant claimed respondent deliberately and repeatedly made falsehoods that misled the Court, specifically by using a Certificate to File Action from a different case and by presenting a fabricated free patent title (OCT No. 1730).
• Conflict of Interest: Complainant alleged respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented occupants of a lot owned by her family, having previously notarized a deed of donation involving the family.
• Connivance with Judge: Complainant accused respondent of conniving with RTC Judge Enrique C. Asis to rule in his clients' favor.
• Violation of Reemployment Prohibition: Complainant charged respondent with grave misconduct for defying the accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge by accepting government employment at NIT College of Law and receiving salaries.

• Validity of Certificate to File Action: Respondent argued that he used a certification issued by the Lupon Chairman on May 9, 2001, when he filed the quieting of title case.
• Furnishing of Title: Respondent claimed the free patent title was attached to the folio of the records and he furnished a copy to complainant's counsel.
• No Conflict of Interest: Respondent argued that the notarization of the deed of donation had no relation to the case filed against the occupants of the lot.
• Mootness of Reemployment Issue: Respondent claimed he was no longer connected with NIT College of Law, rendering the issue moot. He claimed his designation as Assistant Dean was temporary, he received only honorarium, and he furnished the OBC and MCLE Office a copy of his designation without objection.

• Gross Misconduct: Whether respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for his actions, including misrepresentation, use of improper language, and violation of the reemployment prohibition.

• Gross Misconduct: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting the existence of a certificate to file action, using improper language in pleadings, and willfully defying the Court's prohibition on reemployment in government office. The penalty of suspension was increased from one year to two years.

• Improper Language: Respondent's use of terms like "silahis" and accusations of cohabitation against the complainant were irrelevant and offensive, violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer must defend himself with vigor but must refrain from using improper language.
• Misrepresentation of Certificate to File Action: The complaint for quieting of title was filed on October 18, 2000, but the Certificate of Endorsement respondent claimed to have used was issued on May 9, 2001. Thus, the certificate did not exist at the time of filing, proving respondent misrepresented that a certificate to file action was issued prior to the filing. This violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Failure to Furnish Title: The Court found this did not constitute dishonesty, as there was no showing respondent deliberately withheld the title, and the question of whether the title was fabricated was a question of fact outside the scope of the administrative case without clear proof of respondent's orchestration.
• Conflict of Interest and Connivance: Notarization is different from representation, and the allegations of connivance with Judge Asis were bare and unproven.
• Violation of Reemployment Prohibition: Respondent was dismissed as a judge in 1994 with prejudice to reappointment to any public office. The prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments, nor does receiving only honorarium or lack of objection from the OBC extinguish the disqualification. Respondent knowingly defied the prohibition, constituting gross misconduct.

• Gross Misconduct — Defined as improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
• Prohibition on Reemployment — The accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office following dismissal from the judiciary does not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. Accepting any government position, even temporary or for honorarium, constitutes a willful defiance of the Court's order.

• "The prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. Hence, that his designation was only temporary does not absolve him from liability." — This clarifies that the accessory penalty of disqualification from reemployment applies regardless of the nature or duration of the subsequent government appointment.
• "Clearly, respondent misrepresented that he filed a certificate to file action when there was none, which act violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility" — This establishes the finding of misrepresentation based on the timeline of the filing versus the issuance of the certificate.

• Saberon vs. Larong — Cited to support the rule that while a lawyer may present a case with vigor, it does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
• Santeco vs. Avance — Cited for the principle that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination, or disrespect meriting suspension or disbarment.

• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in professional dealings. Applied to respondent's offensive descriptions of the complainant and her counsel.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, prohibiting falsehood and misrepresentation. Applied to respondent's misrepresentation regarding the certificate to file action.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates grounds for disbarment or suspension, including gross misconduct. Used as the basis for the penalty of suspension.
• Section 412, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Requires the submission of a certificate to file action as a pre-condition for filing a complaint in court.

Sereno, C. J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.