In Malabed v. De la Peña, the Supreme Court addressed serious allegations of misconduct against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña. The Court found him guilty of gross misconduct for using improper language in pleadings, misrepresenting facts to the court regarding a certificate to file action, and defying a prior order of the Court disqualifying him from government employment. This ruling underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and the serious consequences for violating those standards, particularly disobedience to lawful orders from the Court.

When Ethical Lines Blur: Examining an Attorney’s Disregard for Legal and Professional Boundaries

Adelpha E. Malabed filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña, citing dishonesty and grave misconduct. The allegations stemmed from several incidents, including the use of an incorrect certificate to file action, failure to provide documents to opposing counsel, conflict of interest, and defying a previous Supreme Court order. This case presented the Supreme Court with an opportunity to reinforce the importance of ethical conduct and obedience to court orders within the legal profession. The central question was whether Atty. De la Peña’s actions constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and merited disciplinary action.

The complainant, Adelpha E. Malabed, accused Atty. De la Peña of several acts of misconduct. First, she alleged that he submitted a certificate to file action that pertained to a different case, effectively misleading the court. Second, she claimed that he failed to provide her counsel with a copy of a crucial land title document, hindering her ability to defend her interests. Third, she argued that Atty. De la Peña was in conflict of interest by representing parties opposing her family’s interests after notarizing a deed of donation related to the same property. Finally, she asserted that he violated the Supreme Court’s prior order disqualifying him from government employment by accepting positions at a state university.

In his defense, Atty. De la Peña denied the charges, claiming that the certificate to file action was valid, that he had furnished a copy of the land title, and that his notarization of the deed of donation was unrelated to the subsequent legal dispute. He admitted to accepting positions at the state university but argued that his appointment was temporary and that he had not received a fixed salary. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. De la Peña guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The IBP Commissioner noted the offensive language used by Atty. De la Peña in his pleadings, describing it as a “clear manifestation of respondent’s gross misconduct.”

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that lawyers must maintain decorum and respect in their pleadings. The Court cited Saberon v. Larong, stating, “[W]hile a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.” The Court found that Atty. De la Peña’s language was not only inappropriate but also irrelevant to the resolution of the case, violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the use of abusive or improper language in professional dealings.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the certificate to file action. The Court found that Atty. De la Peña misrepresented that a certificate to file action was submitted, violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require candor and fairness to the court. Specifically, Rule 10.01 states, “A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”

The Court also addressed the issue of Atty. De la Peña’s violation of the prohibition on reemployment in government office. The Court emphasized that he was fully aware of the consequences of his dismissal as a judge, including the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office. Despite this, he accepted positions at a state university and received compensation. The Court rejected his argument that his designation was only temporary, stating that the prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. The Supreme Court referenced Santeco v. Avance, highlighting that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Atty. De la Peña guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting facts to the court, using improper language in his pleadings, and defying the Court’s prohibition on reemployment in any government office. The Court defined gross misconduct 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.” As a result, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for two years, increasing the IBP’s recommended penalty due to the repeated nature of the misconduct.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña was guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct based on the allegations brought against him, warranting disciplinary action.
What did the complainant accuse Atty. De la Peña of?	The complainant accused Atty. De la Peña of using an incorrect certificate to file action, failing to provide documents to opposing counsel, conflict of interest, and defying a previous Supreme Court order.
What was Atty. De la Peña’s defense?	Atty. De la Peña denied the charges, claiming the certificate to file action was valid, he had furnished the land title, his notarization was unrelated, and his university appointment was temporary.
What did the IBP find?	The IBP found Atty. De la Peña guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, noting his offensive language and recommending a one-year suspension.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. De la Peña guilty of gross misconduct and increased the penalty to a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
What specific acts constituted gross misconduct?	The gross misconduct included misrepresenting facts to the court, using improper language in pleadings, and defying the Court’s prohibition on reemployment in any government office.
What rule did Atty. De la Peña violate by using improper language?	Atty. De la Peña violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the use of abusive or improper language in professional dealings.
What is the definition of gross misconduct used by the Court?	The Court defined gross misconduct 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.”
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. De la Peña?	Atty. De la Peña was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

This case serves as a reminder to all members of the bar of the importance of upholding ethical standards and obeying court orders. The legal profession demands integrity, candor, and respect, and any deviation from these principles can result in serious consequences. Lawyers must be mindful of their conduct both in and out of the courtroom, and they must adhere to the rules and regulations that govern their profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ADELPHA E. MALABED, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEÑA, RESPONDENT., G.R No. 7594, February 09, 2016