The Supreme Court ruled that filing administrative complaints against fellow lawyers as a retaliatory measure or without sufficient basis degrades the legal profession. It emphasized that such actions undermine the principles of courtesy, fairness, and candor expected among lawyers, and cautioned against the abuse of disciplinary processes for personal vendettas.

When Lawyers Clash: Can a Disciplinary Action Mask a Personal Grudge?

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos, then a Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Tabuzo accused Gomos of violating the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and Republic Act 6713, alleging nonfeasance and gross ignorance of the law. These accusations stemmed from an earlier administrative case, CBD Case No. 12-3457, where Gomos recommended that Tabuzo be reprimanded. The central legal question is whether an administrative complaint is the appropriate remedy for assailing an adverse decision made by an IBP Commissioner, or if it constitutes an abuse of the disciplinary process.

The Supreme Court delved into the nature of the IBP and its commissioners. The IBP’s existence is rooted in Sec. 13, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution, which granted the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. The Court highlighted the historical legislative and jurisprudential context, tracing the IBP’s creation back to R.A. No. 6397, which empowered the Court to integrate the Philippine Bar. The 1973 Constitution, through Sec. 5(5) of Art. X, further cemented this power. This led to the landmark case of In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, which upheld the integration.

Following this, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 181 formally created the IBP, vesting it with corporate personality. Sec. 2 of the law states:

Section 2. The Integrated Bar shall have perpetual succession and shall have all legal powers appertaining to a juridical person, particularly the power to sue and be sued; to contract and be contracted with; to hold real and personal property as may be necessary for corporate purposes; to mortgage, lease, sell, transfer, convey and otherwise dispose of the same; to solicit and receive public and private donations and contributions; to accept and receive real and personal property by gift, devise or bequest; to levy and collect membership dues and special assessments from its members; to adopt a seal and to alter the same at pleasure; to have offices and conduct its affairs in the Greater Manila Area and elsewhere; to make and adopt by-laws, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the Philippines or the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 139-A thereof; and generally to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or proper to carry into effect and promote the purposes for which it was organized.

The Court emphasized that the IBP is a sui generis public institution, deliberately organized by both the legislative and judicial branches for the advancement of the legal profession. The Court then addressed whether IBP Commissioners are considered public officers. According to Section 4 of the IBP’s By-Laws, only private practitioners can hold positions in the organization. Therefore, IBP Commissioners are private practitioners performing public functions delegated by the Court. This was underscored in Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada:

The [IBP CBD] derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the [IBP-CBD] should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by this Court.

The Court clarified that while IBP Commissioners are not public officers in the traditional sense, they are still “officers of the court” and “servants of the law.” They may be held administratively liable only in relation to their functions as IBP officers, not as government officials. The complaint also alleged delay in the resolution of CBD Case No. 12-3457. Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD specifies that “the only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a resolution.”

The Court found that the complainant had filed several pleadings not explicitly enumerated in the rules. As such, the respondent had no duty to act on these unsanctioned pleadings. Additionally, the complainant failed to provide certified true copies of these motions or resolutions, making it impossible to verify the alleged delay. The Court reiterated that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for an adverse decision, especially when other remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration, are available. It appeared that the charge of delay was a retaliation for the adverse Resolution No. XXI-205-074.

The Court also addressed the respondent’s comments on the complainant’s behavior in the report and recommendation. The respondent had noted that the complainant used intemperate language. The Court stated that lawyers should be tolerant of criticisms, as litigation is inherently a hostile endeavor. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility emphasizes:

CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

The Court noted the complainant’s propensity for filing baseless complaints and hurling denigrating allegations. The Court sternly warned the complainant and her collaborating counsel to refrain from filing baseless administrative suits against fellow lawyers.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether filing an administrative complaint against an IBP Commissioner is the proper way to challenge an adverse decision, or if it constitutes an abuse of the disciplinary process.
What is the nature of the IBP according to the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court described the IBP as a sui generis public institution, deliberately organized by the legislative and judicial branches of government to advance the legal profession.
Are IBP Commissioners considered public officers?	No, IBP Commissioners are not considered public officers in the traditional sense. They are private practitioners performing public functions delegated by the Supreme Court.
What duties do IBP Commissioners have?	IBP Commissioners, as officers of the court and servants of the law, are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and set a good example.
What pleadings are allowed in IBP disciplinary proceedings?	According to Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD, the only pleadings allowed are verified complaints, verified answers, verified position papers, and motions for reconsideration.
What evidence is needed to justify administrative penalties?	Preponderant evidence is necessary to justify imposing administrative penalties on a member of the Bar, meaning the evidence from one side must be superior or have greater weight than the other.
What does Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility state?	Canon 8 states that a lawyer should conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, and should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
What was the outcome of the administrative complaint in this case?	The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s recommendation and dismissed the administrative complaint filed against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.

This case serves as a reminder that the legal profession demands courtesy, fairness, and candor among its members. Filing baseless administrative complaints not only degrades the profession but also diverts resources from addressing genuine misconduct. Lawyers must exercise caution and ensure that their actions are grounded in legitimate concerns, rather than personal animosity.

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: ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M. GOMOS, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 64354, July 23, 2018