Ten years ago, the mass media carried reports of a brewing internal rebellion among the employees of the national office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against the IBP national president at that time, Atty. Jose A. Grapilon.
I am glad that for the past few years the employees of the IBP national office and, for most part, the employees of the local IBP chapters nationwide, in general, have been working peacefully. I hope it will continue to be that way for many years to come.
In A.C. No. 4826 (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO REMOVE ATTY. JOSE A. GRAPILON AS PRESIDENT, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES), January 27, 1999, the Supreme Court en banc swiftly investigated and resolved the controversy.
Rosalia Villaruel, et. al., all employees of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”), sought, in a letter-complaint, dated 20 November 1997, addressed to the Supreme Court, the removal from office of IBP National President Jose Aguila Grapilon, based on the following charges:
"immorality, questionable disbursement of funds, dishonesty, failure to turn-over to IBP donations from private individuals and to account for the same, refusal to turn-over to the IBP employee’ records and money pertaining to the Employees’ Loan and Savings Association, appropriation of office property for his and his family’s personal use, extending Loans at an interest to IBP employees, issuance of unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and oppressive orders, oppression and harassment, appointment of employees who hailed from the Visayas Region and whose services were not needed, appointment of Atty. Eulogia Cueva, a cousin of Atty. Grapilon, to the post of National Executive Director and Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), and organization of a Secret Society."
The Board of Governors created a fact-finding committee tasked-
“(a) to determine the procedures and requirements for the disbursements of funds of the IBP, particularly those subject of the Petition, and to recommend
appropriate measures to insure that IBP funds are properly disbursed;
“(b) to determine the procedures and practices being used by the IBP personnel in the safekeeping and custody of official records and documents, it appearing that certain records and documents which should remain only with a particular department or office are readily available to practically any person, and to recommend appropriate measures and controls to ensure that all official records and documents are properly safeguarded;
“(c) to determine the extent and causes of any conflict or friction between and among IBP employees, particularly the petitioners and the respondents in the Petition or those alluded to therein, and recommend appropriate measures to prevent further degradation in the working relationships between and among IBP employees as well as remedy whatever damage may have been done to the same.”
In a letter dated 13 December 1997, IBP National Secretary Roland B. Inting required complainants, pursuant to a directive by the Board of Governors, to explain, within five (5) working days, why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for committing acts inimical to the IBP, in main:
“1. For going to the media in airing (their) complaint against the President of the IBP, when complaints against lawyers and judges are confidential in nature;
“2. For by-passing the Board of Governors in (their) complaint against (their) fellow employees and the National Executive Director.
“3. For causing damage to the name and integrity of the IBP as an institution.”
In the meantime, complainants were “preventively suspended” with pay by IBP “to protect (it) against the unauthorized use of confidential documents and further protect the properties of the IBP xxx.”
Complainants forthwith submitted to the Court a “Supplemental Petition with Reiterated Motion for Suspension of Atty. Grapilon and for the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order against the IBP,” claiming that by continuing to act as IBP President, Atty. Grapilon had succeeded in creating an “unreasonable and hostile atmosphere” for them, “rendering their continued employment humiliating, demeaning and impossible.”
Complainants, moreover, denied having sought media coverage and alleged that ABS-CBN must have only somehow learned of their complaint. Complainants stressed that their complaint against Atty. Grapilon was not in his capacity as a lawyer but as the National President of the IBP.
The complainants refused to recognize the authority of the fact-finding committee created by the IBP Board of Governors, thus, the latter decided to terminate the services of complainants except for one of them who was, instead, merely suspended from work without pay.
The Court formed “an ad hoc Committee led by Justice Jorge S. Imperial, of the Court of Appeals, for the reception and evaluation of evidence to be presented by the parties and thereafter to make its report and its recommendations on the matter within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records.”
At the start of the investigation by the Ad Hoc Committee, some of the accusations against Atty. Grapilon were dropped by complainants, a fact which was confirmed by their counsel in the hearing of 21 May 1998. The Ad Hoc Committee accordingly confined itself to the remaining charges.
An offshoot of the case against Atty. Grapilon was the complaint filed against the IBP Board of Governors following the preventive suspension (with pay) of complainants by the Board of Governors. Shortly after complainants had refused to recognize the authority of the fact-finding committee created by the Board of Governors, the latter, pursuant to the IBP resolution of 10 January 1998, dismissed from the service Asuncion Ilagan, et. al. and suspended Soledad Afroilan for five days without pay.
The Court, in its 03 February 1998 resolution, granted the prayer of complainants for the inclusion of the IBP Board of Governors also as party respondents to this case. This incident, as well as the motion to nullify the IBP resolution of 10 January 1998, was referred by the Court to the Ad Hoc Committee. The Court thereupon directed the parties “to maintain the status quo ante at the time of the adoption of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, dated 10 January 1998, without prejudice to the authority of the Ad Hoc Committee to modify this directive such as the evidence may warrant."
On 23 March 1998, a petition to cite the IBP Board of Governors for contempt was filed, allegedly for its failure to comply with the resolution, dated 03 February 1998, of the Court with a prayer that the IBP Board of Governors be directed to reinstate complainants “actually or in the payroll.”
Ultimately, the Court agreed with the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee that the accusations against Atty. Grapilon had not been properly substantiated.
Nevertheless, relative to the claim that certain funds of the IBP Employees’ Savings and Loan Association had been placed in his personal account, albeit sufficiently explained, the Court deemed it proper, to direct Atty. Grapilon to immediately cause the transfer of the funds from his name to that of the association. The members of the IBP Employees’ Savings and Loan Association were advised to organize a Board of Directors which can carry out the task of managing the funds of the association, including the approval of loan transactions, in order to avoid any misimpression of irregularity if the procedures thus far practiced would be allowed to continue.
As regards the alleged recourse to the media by complainants in making public their complaints against Atty. Grapilon, the Ad Hoc Committee held that the IBP Board of Governors was justified in instituting the investigation against complaints, citing jurisprudence to the effect that the publication by employees of charges which ridicule the employer’s officials or its management and sully its reputation, was a reprehensible act inimical to the employer’s interests and constitutes gross misconduct which is a just cause for the termination of their employment.
The Court, nevertheless, found the penalty of dismissal from service of complainants to be rather harsh. Complainants apparently had not acted with clear malice in refusing to take cognizance of the authority of the IBP fact-finding committee on their impression that this Court, where their complaint against Atty. Grapilon was pending, was vested with jurisdiction not only over the main case but also over the incidents arising therefrom. Nevertheless, as the Ad Hoc Committee had aptly intimated, complainants could not be said to be entirely faultless.
The status quo ante contained in the Court’s resolution of 03 February 1998 was unequivocal. It effectively enjoined the IBP Board of Governors to maintain the standing situation prior to 10 January 1998, i.e., that complainants remained suspended with pay during these proceedings until otherwise resolved.
In conclusion, after a thorough consideration of the case, the Court adopted for the most part the report, findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee subject to modifications.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolved, thus:
1. To DISMISS all the charges against Atty. Jose Grapilon for lack of merit;
2. To DIRECT Atty. Grapilon to immediately transfer, or cause the transfer of the funds of the IBP Savings and Loan Association from his name to the name of the Association, its Board of Directors or its duly authorized representatives;
3. To DIRECT the IBP Board of Governors to reinstate complainants to their former positions;
4. To DIRECT complainants to pay a FINE of P2,000.00 each for precipitately seeking media attention to air their complaints; and
5. To DIRECT the IBP Board of Governors to fully implement the status quo ante order of 03 February 1998 by paying the salaries of complainants from 10 January 1998 until their reinstatement to service or the payment of separation, as the case may be, and to ADMONISH the IBP Board of Governors for its failure to comply with said status quo ante order of 03 February 1998.
