Tabuzo vs. Gomos

IBP Commissioners are not "public officers" under the Administrative Code, the Revised Penal Code, or anti-graft laws, but are private practitioners performing public functions delegated by the Supreme Court; consequently, they may only be held administratively liable for violations of rules promulgated by the Court relative to the integrated bar and the practice of law, not as government officials subject to laws governing public employment. Furthermore, the filing of an administrative complaint against an adjudicator is not the proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an adverse decision, order, resolution, or recommendation.

Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo was the respondent in CBD Case No. 12-3457, an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Lucille G. Sillo before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos was assigned as the investigating commissioner. On August 15, 2014, Gomos issued a Report and Recommendation finding Tabuzo liable for impropriety and abusive language in her pleadings, recommending that she be reprimanded. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation in Resolution No. XXI-2015-074 dated January 31, 2015. Aggrieved by this outcome, Tabuzo filed the instant administrative complaint against Gomos, ascribing to him various violations of the Constitution, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, among others.

• Lucille G. Sillo filed CBD Case No. 12-3457, an administrative complaint for disbarment, against complainant Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo before the IBP.
• Respondent Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos, then serving as a Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, was assigned to investigate CBD Case No. 12-3457.
• On August 15, 2014, respondent issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that complainant be reprimanded for (a) the impropriety of talking to Sillo without her counsel prior to a mediation conference, and (b) the use of abusive, offensive, or improper language in her pleadings.
• The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation in Resolution No. XXI-2015-074 dated January 31, 2015.
• Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and Republic Act No. 6713 by failing to act on her pleadings with dispatch and for issuing his report 174 days from the submission of the last pleading.
• Complainant further alleged that respondent violated Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by allegedly mutilating statements in her pleadings and maliciously cropping and pasting portions to create a wrong impression.
• Complainant accused respondent of nonfeasance for deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action against Atty. Alan R. Bulawan for forum shopping and other grave malpractices despite notice as early as December 2013.
• Complainant also posited that respondent was grossly ignorant of the rules on privileged communication, evidence, perjury, and forum shopping for failing to dismiss CBD Case No. 12-3457 outright.
• In his Answer, respondent denied the allegations as false and an act of harassment, contending that complainant caused the delay by filing numerous motions instead of the required position paper, and that the report was based on facts, law, and jurisprudence duly adopted by the IBP Board.
• The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that the allegations actually assailed the report and recommendation in CBD Case No. 12-3457, which had already been passed upon and approved by the IBP Board, making it improper to review the same in a separate administrative proceeding.

• Respondent violated the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and Republic Act No. 6713 by failing to act on pleadings with dispatch and for issuing the report and recommendation 174 days after the submission of the last pleading.
• Respondent violated Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions by being cruel and heartless to an inexperienced lawyer, mutilating statements in her pleadings, and maliciously cropping and pasting portions to give the wrong impression that the introductory heading was an act of name-calling.
• Respondent committed nonfeasance by deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action against Atty. Alan R. Bulawan for serious violations of duties owed to the courts and the legal profession (forum shopping) despite repeated notice since December 2013, contrary to Section 1 of Rule 139-B and Section 13 of the IBP By-Laws.
• Respondent was grossly ignorant of the law regarding privileged communication, evidence, perjury, and forum shopping when he failed to dismiss CBD Case No. 12-3457 outright for lack of merit and ignored the perjury and forum shopping committed by Sillo.
• As a quasi-judicial officer performing functions delegated by the Court, respondent is a public officer who could be held administratively liable independently of the IBP Board for issuing a late report without a mandatory conference and with no actual admissions or stipulations of facts.

• The allegations are false, constitute an unfortunate misappreciation of laws and facts, and amount to harassment.
• Complainant caused the delay in the resolution of CBD Case No. 12-3457 by filing numerous motions and pleadings instead of simply filing the required position paper.
• The report and recommendation was based on facts, law, and jurisprudence and was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors; if complainant felt aggrieved, she should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Resolution, not an administrative case against the investigating commissioner.
• The comments made in the report regarding complainant's behavior were fair and realistic observations regarding her intemperate language and lack of humility, finding no place in decent legal argumentation.
• He was being harassed and singled out considering that his report and recommendation was approved by the majority of the Board.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether an IBP Commissioner may be held administratively liable in the same manner as judges and other government officials by virtue of his position as Commissioner on Bar Discipline.
  • Whether an IBP Commissioner may be held administratively liable for rendering an alleged adverse judgment, order, resolution, or recommendation in his capacity as investigating commissioner of the IBP.
  • Whether respondent committed gross inefficiency and nonfeasance by allegedly delaying the resolution of motions in CBD Case No. 12-3457.
  • Whether the filing of an administrative complaint is the proper remedy to assail an adverse decision of an investigating commissioner.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that IBP Commissioners are not "public officers" under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 6713, Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9485, or Section 2(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, as they are neither elective nor appointive officials of the government but are private practitioners performing public functions delegated by the Supreme Court.
  • The Court ruled that IBP Commissioners cannot be held liable for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in the framework of administrative law because they are not employed by the government or any of its subdivisions; they may only be held administratively liable for violations of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court relative to the integrated bar and the practice of law, not as government officials.
  • The Court found that Section 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline restrictively allows only verified complaints, answers, position papers, and motions for reconsideration; thus, respondent had no positive duty to act on unsanctioned pleadings such as motions for subpoena, interrogatories, motion to sever, and motion to inhibit.
  • The Court held that complainant failed to satisfy the quantum of preponderant evidence required in disciplinary cases, as she merely relied on bare allegations without attaching certified true copies of the pleadings to prove the dates of filing and resolution.
  • The Court ruled that an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an adverse decision, order, resolution, or recommendation of an adjudicator; the proper remedy is a motion for reconsideration or other appropriate remedy under the ordinary course of law, and a party cannot re-litigate matters in another administrative case against the adjudicator.
  • The Court found that the comments made by respondent in his report regarding complainant's behavior were fair and realistic observations regarding her intemperate language, and did not constitute misconduct.
  • The Court sternly warned complainant Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo and her collaborating counsel Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza, Jr. to refrain from filing and maintaining frivolous administrative complaints against fellow members of the Bar, noting that such conduct violates Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and degrades the legal profession.

• Sui generis public institution — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is a unique public institution deliberately organized by both the legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized by the present and past Constitutions for the advancement of the legal profession; it possesses attributes of a juridical person but is subject to the Supreme Court's administrative supervision.
• Private practitioners performing public functions — IBP Commissioners are not public officers in the context of employment with the government, but are private practitioners performing public functions delegated by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate the practice of law; as "officers of the court" and "servants of the law," they are expected to observe the rule of law but are liable only for violations of rules relative to the integrated bar, not as government officials.
• Proper remedy against adverse administrative adjudication — The filing of an administrative complaint against an adjudicator is not the proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an adverse decision, order, resolution, or recommendation; a party must instead avail of a motion for reconsideration or other judicial remedies, and cannot use the disciplinary process to re-litigate matters or nurse a wounded ego.
• Preponderance of evidence in disciplinary cases — Preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on members of the Bar, meaning the evidence adduced by one side must be superior in weight and more convincing than that offered in opposition; bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof.

• "The filing of an administrative complaint against an adjudicator is not the proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an adverse decision, order, resolution or recommendation, in the case of administrative complaints against lawyers. More importantly, the reckless practice of filing baseless administrative complaints against fellow lawyers undeniably degrades rather than cleanses the ranks of the legal profession."
• "IBP Commissioners are private practitioners performing public functions delegated to them by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate the practice of law."
• "the IBP is a sui generis public institution deliberately organized, by both the legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized by the present and past Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal profession."
• "the primary purpose of administrative disciplinary proceedings against delinquent lawyers is to uphold the law and to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from being corrupted by unscrupulous practices—not to shelter or nurse a wounded ego."
• "Lawyers are reminded to treat their fellow members of the legal profession and even their non-lawyer adversaries with utmost candor, respect and dignity."

• In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 151 Phil. 132 (1973) — Upheld the integration of the Philippine Bar as sanctioned by Section 13, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution; cited for the historical background of the IBP's creation.
• Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, 523 Phil. 17 (2006) — Held that the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline derives its authority from the Supreme Court and should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by the Court; cited for the proposition that IBP Commissioners perform delegated public functions.
• Atty. Tamondong v. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, October 18, 2017 — Held that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available.
• Laurel v. Desierto, 430 Phil. 658 (2002) — Cited for the characteristics of a public office according to Mechem, used for comparison to determine that IBP Commissioners do not fit the definition of public officers.
• Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, 765 Phil. 39 (2015) — Cited for the definition of a public officer under Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Ramientas v. Atty. Reyala, 529 Phil. 128 (2006) — Cited for the rule that the only pleadings allowed in the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline are verified complaint, verified answer, verified position papers, and motion for reconsideration.
• Aba v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., 678 Phil. 588 (2011) — Cited for the standard that preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on members of the Bar.
• Real v. Belo, 542 Phil. 109 (2007) — Cited for the principle that bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof.
• Cruz v. Justice Aliño-Hormachuelos, 470 Phil. 435 (2004) — Cited for the observation that a lawyer may think highly of his or her intellectual endowment, serving as a reminder to espouse humility.

• Section 13, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution — Granted the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, forming the constitutional basis for bar integration.
• Section 5(5), Article X of the 1973 Constitution — Granted the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the integration of the Bar.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the integrated bar and the practice of law; provides for simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases.
• Republic Act No. 6397 — An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar; gave the Supreme Court the facility to initiate the integration process.
• Presidential Decree No. 181 — Constituted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines into a body corporate, vesting it with juridical personality and corporate powers.
• Section 4, IBP By-Laws — Provides that only private practitioners may occupy positions in the IBP; officers are deemed resigned upon acceptance of public office.
• Section 13, IBP By-Laws — Allows the Board of Governors to inquire into malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance committed by IBP members.
• Section 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline — Restrictively enumerates the only pleadings allowed as verified complaint, verified answer, verified position papers, and motion for reconsideration.
• Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court — Governs proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys.
• Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Sections 3(a) and 3(b) — Define "Government" and "Public Officials"; cited to distinguish IBP Commissioners from public officers.
• Article 203, Revised Penal Code — Defines "public officer" as any person who takes part in the performance of public functions or performs public duties as an employee or agent of the government.
• Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007), Section 4(e) — Defines "Officer or Employee" as a person employed in a government office or agency.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 2(b) — Defines "public officer" to include elective and appointive officials and employees receiving compensation from the government.
• Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution — Mandates that all cases or matters filed must be decided within specific periods; held inapplicable to IBP Commissioners as they are not members of the judiciary.
• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
• Canons 1 and 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Cited by complainant regarding competence, integrity, impartiality, and diligence; held inapplicable as IBP Commissioners are not judges.