IBP By-Laws

BY-LAWS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE I (Sections 1 to 17)

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Name. – The national organization of lawyers created on January 16, 1973 under Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter designated as the Integration Rule) and constituted on May 4, 1973 into a body corporate by Presidential Decree No. 181 shall be known as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SEC.2. Objectives and Purposes. – The following are the general objectives of the Integrated Bar: to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. The purposes of the Integrated Bar include, without being limited to, those specified in the per curiam Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 9, 1973 ordaining the integration of the Philippine Bar, to wit:

(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interest of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information relating thereto;
(6) Encourage and foster legal education; and
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.

SEC.3. Powers, prerogatives, functions, duties, and responsibilities. – The powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Integrated Bar, its Chapters and other agencies, its officers and committees, national and local, its commissions, and its members, are as provided by law, the Integration Rule, Presidential Decree No. 181, these By-Laws, and pertinent rules and regulations.
Inter alia, 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 to 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 the Integration Rule; and generally to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or proper to carry into effect and promote the objectives and purposes for which it was organized.

All donations or contributions which may be made by private entities or persons to the Integrated Bar shall be exempt from income and gifts taxes, and the same shall further be deductible in full and shall not be included for purposes of computing the maximum amount deductible under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

All taxes, charges and fees that may be paid by the Integrated Bar or any of its Chapters to the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be refundable annually to the former for the period extending up to December 31, 1978.

SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. – The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

SEC. 5. Positions honorary. – Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court, no national or local officer, or committee or commission member shall receive any compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated Bar for any service rendered therein, or be entitled to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the discharge of his functions.

SEC. 6. National office. – The national office of the Integrated Bar shall be in the Greater Manila Area.

SEC. 7. Seal and emblem. – The seal and the emblem of the Integrated Bar, as adopted by the Board of Governors, shall be kept at its national office.

SEC. 8. Notices and processes. – Service of all notices and processes intended for the Integrated of the Philippines shall be made upon its Secretary or other authorized representative at its national office.

Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, any notice to be served upon a member of the Integrated Bar shall be deemed given when deposited in the mail, postage fully prepaid, and addressed to such member at his last known office or resident address appearing in the records or membership roll of the national office or the Chapter concerned.

Notice to the general membership may be given by mail, by publication in the Journal of the Integrated Bar or as otherwise directed by the Board of Governors.

SEC. 9. Officer defined. – The term “officer” as used in these By-Laws shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: President, Executive Vice President, Governors, Secretary, Treasurer and other national officers of the Integrated Bar, officers and members of the House of Delegates, Chapter officers and directors, commissioners, and members of all national and local committees.

Only members in good standing may become officers, and unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws, no person who is not a member of the Integrated Bar may become an officer.

SEC. 10. Term of office. – The term of office of all elective officers, national and local, shall be two years. In no case may any member be elected to the same office for two consecutive terms.

The prohibition against re-election shall not apply to the position of Treasurer of the Chapter. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)

SEC. 11. Vacancies. – Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, whenever the term of an office or position, whether elective or appointive, is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill the vacancy therein shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the term.

SEC. 12. Non-answerability of the Integrated Bar. – In the absence of a showing of malice, fraud, bad faith or negligence, the Integrated Bar, its national officers and Governors, the officers and members of the House of Delegates, all of the Chapters and the officers thereof, commissioners, and all committees national and local, and the members thereof, shall not be answerable for any damage incident to any complaint, charge, investigation, prosecution, proceeding, trial, decision, resolution, recommendation, or action had, made, done or taken under the authority of these By-Laws.

SEC. 13. Malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance. – Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding section, the Board of Governors may motu proprio or upon the relation of any person, inquire into any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance committed by any member of the Integrated Bar or of any of its Chapters, and, after due hearing, take whatever action it may deem warranted. Such action may include his suspension or removal from any office of the Integrated Bar or of its Chapters held by such erring member, as well as recommendation to the Supreme Court for his suspension from the practice of law or disbarment.

The IBP Chapter shall remit to the National Office the membership dues, net of chapter share, and the applicable building fund assessment collected by it within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof, otherwise, the President and the Treasurer shall be subject to administrative sanction as may be determined by the Board of Governors. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)

SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. – The following acts and practices relative to the elections are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through another person:

(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;
(b) Distribution, on election day, of election material other than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections;
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;
(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar consideration to any to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered or promised to any person.

SEC.15. Supreme Court observer. – The Supreme Court may designate an official observer at any election of the Integrated Bar whether national or local.

SEC. 16. Voluntary Bar associations. – All voluntary Bar associations now existing or which may hereafter be formed may co-exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-purposes therewith nor against any policy, act, resolution or decision thereof.

SEC. 17. Rules of Court suppletory. – Whenever applicable, the Rules of Court shall be suppletory to these By-Laws.

ARTICLE II (Sections 18 to 22) MEMBERSHIP

SEC. 18. Membership. – The following persons are, automatically and without exception, members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

(a) All lawyers whose names were in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court on January 16, 1973; and
(b) All lawyers whose names were included or are entered therein after the said date.

SEC.19. Registration. – Unless he has already previously registered, every member heretofore admitted to the practice of law shall, not later than December 31, 1974, register in the Integrated Bar as hereunder required, at the national office or at the office of his Chapter.

Every person admitted to the practice of law after these By-Laws become effective shall register in like manner not later than sixty days after such admission.
Registration shall be accomplished by signing and filing in duplicate the prescribed registration form containing such information as may be required by the Board of Governors, including the following:

(a) Full name, sex and civil status;
(b) Month, date, year and place of birth;
(c) Office address(es);
(d) Residence address(es);
(e) Occupation(s) or employment;
(f) Name of law school and year of graduation;
(g) Year of admission to the Bar; and
(h) Field(s) of specialization in law, if any.

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of every Chapter to promptly forward a copy of each accomplished registration form to the national office.

Every change after registration in respect to any of the matters above specified shall be reported within sixty (60) days to the chapter Secretary, who shall in turn promptly report the change to the national office.

Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city, political subdivision or area where his office or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.

SEC.20. Members in good standing. – Every member who has paid all membership dues and all authorized special assessments, plus surcharges owing thereon, and who is not under suspension from the practice of law or from membership privileges, is a member in good standing.

SEC.21. Voluntary termination of membership; reinstatement. – A member may terminate his membership by filing a verified notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith, he shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Reinstatement may be made in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court, provided any written application for reinstatement must be filed with the Board, which shall, within fifteen (15) days from receipt, forward the same to the Court with its appropriate recommendation.
SEC.22. Retirement, reinstatement. – Any member in good standing who shall have attained the age of seventy-five years, or shall have been forty years a lawyer, or who shall, by reason of physical disability or judicially adjudged mental incapacity, be unable to engage in the practice of law, may be retired from the Integrated Bar upon verified petition to the Board of Governors. Retired members shall not practice law or be required to pay dues.

A retired member may be reinstated to active membership upon written application to and approval by the Board.

The Board shall make periodic reports of retirement and reinstatement of members to the Supreme Court.

ARTICLE III (Sections 23 to 25) DUES

SEC.23. Membership dues. – On or before the 31st day of December, every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues for the ensuing fiscal year in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS at the National Office or at the office of his Chapter, to take effect on January 1, 1995. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)
Membership dues shall be apportioned as follows: Chapter share, Php200.00; General Fund, Php150.00; Welfare Fund Php40.00; Legal Aid Php20.00; Bar Discipline, Php20.00; and IBP Journal Php70.00. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)
Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the Board of Governors may increase the annual membership dues, or modify the apportionment thereof. (As amended on January 30, 1992)

Pursuant to Bar Matter No. 616, the Supreme Court approved the proposal to increase the membership dues from Php500.00 to Php1,000.00 starting the year 2000 of which 60 per cent shall be alloted for the National Office while 40 per cent shall go to the chapters. (Supreme Court Resolution dated February 1, 2000)

THE IBP LIFE MEMBERSHIP PLAN

(Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated August 20, 1996, the life membership fee was increased to Php8,500.00 effective January 1, 1997.)

A member of the IBP may apply for life membership therein by filing an application there for directly with the national office or through the appropriate chapter under the following terms:

(1) That the member shall be in good standing as provided for under Section 20, Article II of these By-Laws at the time he files his application for life membership;
(2) That he pays to the national office his life membership fee in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php5,000.00) and
(3) That he abides by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines implementing the life membership plan.

Upon payment of the life membership fee of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php5,000.00), the member shall be enrolled in the Roll of Life Members to be prepared by and kept in the Office of the Treasurer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He shall be issued a certificate of life membership to be signed by the national president and attested by the National Secretary.

The life membership fee of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php5,000.00) shall be deposited in a reputable banking institution chosen by the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as a perpetual trust fund which shall earn interest at the best possible rate per annum.

Only the annual income of the life membership trust fund shall be available for expenditure of the IBP and shall be applied as follows:

(1) To the payment of the life member’s annual dues as provided in Section 23, Article III of these By-Laws;
(2) Fifty percent of the balance of the income, if any, shall be automatically appropriated for the operational expenses of the Committee on Bar Discipline, including the salaries of the national investigators or commissioners and the staff of the Committee;
(3) The other fifty percent of the balance, if any, shall be deposited as part of the life membership trust fund.

Any life member, whose membership in the IBP terminates by retirement or for any other cause, shall cease to be a life member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. (As amended pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated October 27, 1992)
All lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by them in any court in the Philippines – and in the case of government lawyers, in all official documents issued by them – the number and date of their official receipt indicating payment of their annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year, or in the case of life members, their life membership roll number. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)

SEC.24. Effect of non-payment of dues. – Except for the fiscal year 1974-1975, any member who has not paid his membership dues for any given fiscal year on or before the last day (June 30) of the immediately preceding fiscal year shall be considered a dues – delinquent member. For the fiscal year 1974-1975 any member who has not paid the annual dues on or before November 30, 1974 shall be considered dues delinquent. If the delinquency continues until the following December 31, the Board of Governors shall by Resolution forthwith suspend all his membership privileges other than the practice of law. A copy of such resolution shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the secretary of the chapter concerned. The Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the suspension of the delinquent member from the practice of law.

Should the delinquency further continue until the following June 29, the Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent member’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned.

Whenever a delinquent member makes full payment of the membership dues owing, plus a sum equivalent to 10 percent thereof, such fact shall without delay be reported to the Board, which shall take such action as may be warranted.

A member whose name is removed from the Roll of Attorneys pursuant to the provision of this Section may apply for reinstatement under the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 21 (Voluntary termination of membership; reinstatement)

SEC.25. Remission or lifting of sanctions. – The Board of Governors may, for justifiable reasons, remit or lift sanctions already imposed, and authorize the retroactive reinstatement of the member concerned. However, sanctions imposed or approved by the Supreme Court may be remitted or lifted only by the Court.

ARTICLE IV (Sections 26 to 29) CHAPTERS

SEC.26. Chapters. – A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province existing on the date of the effectivity of the Integration Rule. Except as hereinbelow provided, every city shall be considered part of the province within which it was geographically situated prior to its creation as a city.

A separate chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or areas:

(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila existing on the date of the effectivity of the Integration Rule;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City, Basilan City, and Basilan Province.

The Board of Governors shall reorganize the various Chapters of cities and provinces, by division or merger, to the end that, as far as practicable, no chapter shall have more than one thousand nor less than five hundred members, beginning with the fiscal year 1977-1978.

The Board shall study the feasibility of organizing Chapters in new provinces.

SEC.27. Coordination of Chapter activities. – The Board shall coordinate and supervise the activities of all the Chapters for purposes of promoting maximum lawyer participation in Integrated Bar affairs, and effective administration and operation of the organization.

SEC.28. Chapter local government. – Each Chapter shall have its own government.
SEC.29. Uniform by-laws. – Every Chapter shall strictly observe the following by-laws, but the Board of Officers of any Chapter may submit for consideration and action by the Board of Governors such additional provisions as may be demanded by local conditions.

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CHAPTER BY-LAWS

SECTION 1. Objectives and Purposes. – The fundamental objective of the Chapter shall be to administer the affairs of the Integrated Bar within its territorial jurisdiction, under the general direction and supervision of the Board of Governors, with the end in view of elevating the standards of the legal profession, improving the administration of justice, enabling the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively, and carrying out the purposes specified in the per curiam Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 9, 1973 ordaining the integration in Section 2 (objectives and purposes) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar.

SEC. 2. Membership. – The Chapter comprises all members registered in its membership roll. Each member shall maintain his membership until the same is terminated on any of the grounds set forth in the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or he transfers his membership to another chapter as certified by the Secretary of the latter, provided that the transfer is made not less than three months immediately preceding any Chapter election.

SEC. 3. Membership dues and special assessments. – Every member of the Integrated Bar registered in the chapter shall pay annual membership dues as prescribed by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar or by the Board of Governors, subject to the sanctions that maybe imposed in case of delinquency. Special assessments for specific purposes as may be required may be imposed, and non-payment thereof shall be subject to the same sanctions provided for non-payment of dues; Provided, that the total amount for special assessments in any given fiscal year shall not exceed the amount of the annual dues. If a special assessment does not exceed Php25.00, the same may be made effective immediately. If in excess of Php25.00, a special assessment shall not become effective until approved by the written vote of the majority of all the members. Special assessments shall remain effective unless revoked or amended by the majority of all the members at a special meeting called for the purpose in accordance with Section 4 (Chapter meetings) hereof.

SEC. 4. Chapter meetings. – The Chapter annual meeting shall be held on the last Saturday of February at such time and place as the Board of Officers shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and shall be called upon the written request of five members of the Board of Officers or of at least thirty percent of the entire membership. Written notice of any meeting shall be mailed by the Secretary to each member, at his last known address, at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The Board of Officers shall take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the attendance of all members at all meetings.

At any annual or special meeting, the members present shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

SEC. 5. Board of Officers. – The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a Public Relations Officer and five Directors, who shall be elected at the biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two years from the first day of April next following their election and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)

In addition to the elected officers, the immediate Past-President shall ipso facto become an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Board of Directors. As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1049) The President and Vice President shall be chairman and vice chairman, respectively.

In case of any permanent vacancy in the Board of Officers, except that of President which shall be filled by the Vice President, the Board shall elect a successor to serve for the unexpired portion of the term. In case of a temporary vacancy that affects the quorum of the Board, the remaining members of the Board shall elect a temporary replacement. Any member of the Board may be removed for cause, including three consecutive absences from Board meetings without justifiable excuse, upon resolution adopted by the majority of the remaining members of the Board at a regular meeting. Within ten days from receipt of the resolution, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Board of Governors, whose decision shall be final.

SEC. 6. Meeting of the Board of Officers. – Regular monthly meetings shall be held by the Board of Officers on such date and at such time and place as it shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and shall be called upon the written request of five members of the Board. Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.

SEC. 7. Duties of officers.

(a) President. – The President shall be the chief executive of the Chapter. He shall preside at all Chapter meetings and at all meetings of the Board of Officers.
(b) Vice President. – The Vice President shall perform the duties of the President during the absence or inability of the latter to act, and such other duties as may be assigned to him by the President and the Board.
(c) Secretary. – The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Officers and keep a record of all the proceedings thereof; prepare and maintain a membership roll of the Chapter and keep all the records thereof; prepare official ballots for all election; and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the President and the Board.
(d) Treasurer. – The Treasurer shall receive, collect and safely keep, under the direction of the Board of Governors and the Board of Officers, all funds of the Chapter; promptly remit to the national office the latter’s share of the dues and assessments under Section 23 (Membership Dues) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar; keep proper books of accounts and render reports of receipts and disbursements as may be required; and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the President and the Board. He shall furnish a bond at the expense of the Chapter, in such amount as may be required by the Board of Governors.

All disbursements shall be made over the signature of the Treasurer, countersigned by the President or, in his absence, by the Vice President.

SEC. 8. Delegates. – The President shall concurrently be the Delegate of the Chapter to the House of Delegates. The Vice President shall be his alternate, unless the chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate, in which case the Vice President shall also be a Delegate. Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the Board.

SEC. 9. Annual budget. – The Board shall adopt an annual budget. No disbursement shall be made except in accordance therewith.

SEC. 10. Audit. – Audit of all Chapter funds, accounts, receipts and disbursements shall be in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors.

SEC. 11. Committees. – The President shall, with the concurrence of the majority of the Board of Officers, appoint the following standing committees: a committee on legal aid and committee on legislation. The Board may create such other committees as may be necessary.

The members of all committees shall serve for a term of one year, and until their respective successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified. It shall be the duty of the committee on legal aid to establish legal aid bureaus for deserving poor litigants and set up lawyer referral services. It shall be the duty of the committee on legislation to consider and propose any legislation relating to substantive and remedial law.

SEC. 12. Rules governing elections. – The following rules shall govern elections:

(a) Date and place of elections. – Elections of Officers and Directors shall be held on the last Saturday of February every other year at such time and place as the Board shall designate, which shall be stated in the notice to be sent to every member by personal delivery or by mail not less than thirty days prior to the elections.
(b) Responsibility for the elections. – The preparation of all election paraphernalia, the setting up of registration and canvassing committees, and all other matters relating to the elections, shall be the responsibility and shall be under the supervision and control of the President.
(c) Voters’ list. – Not earlier that twenty-five days nor later that fifteen days prior to the elections, the Secretary shall submit to the Board of Officers a list of the names of all the members entitled to vote. The voters’ list shall then remain closed and shall not be altered except upon direction of the Board. However, it shall be open to inspection by all members, and, upon request, copies thereof shall be furnished to any member upon payment of actual cost.

Any member who is delinquent in the payment of dues or any assessment, including surcharges owing, twenty-five days prior to the day of the elections, shall be excluded from the voters’ list.

(d) Violation. - Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 (Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar.

(e) Election campaign material. – No election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of the candidate or aspirant on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper shall be allowed, and distribution thereof shall be made only on the day of elections and only by persons authorized by the officer presiding at the elections.

(f) Eligibility. – No member may be elected to any office whose name is not duly included in the voters’ list, or who is disqualified by the Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or by these by-laws.

(g) Nomination of candidates. - Any eligible member may, upon his written consent, be nominated to any office: Provided, that no member may be a candidate for more than one office. Every nomination shall be made orally by a member other than the nominee and shall be limited to a statement of the full name of the nominee. No member who is not personally present at the election meeting may be nominated. No nomination other than on the floor shall be allowed. In no case shall any nomination or campaign speech be permitted.

(h) Disqualification proceedings. – Any question relating to the eligibility of a candidate must be raised prior to the casting of ballots, and shall be immediately decided by the presiding officer. An appeal from such decision maybe taken to the members in attendance who shall forthwith resolve the appeal by plurality vote. Voting shall be by raising of hands. The decision of the members shall be final, and the elections shall thereafter proceed. Recourse to the Board of Governors may be had in accordance with Section 13 (Election contest) hereof.

(i) Voting. - Voting for Officers and Directors shall be by secret ballot. Official ballots shall be provided for the purpose. Voting by proxy shall not be allowed.
(j) Canvassing of ballots. – The presiding officer shall organize as many committees as are they necessary composed of three non-candidates each, which shall canvass all votes cast in the elections immediately after the last ballot shall have been cast. Canvassing, when started, shall be continuous until finished and shall be within the view and observation of as many members as possible. In the reading of the ballots, the rules embodied in the general election law shall be followed. The chairman and members of each committee shall certify to the correctness of the tally made by them.

(k) Certification of election results. – Elections shall be determined by plurality vote. Any tie vote shall be broken by drawing of lots. The presiding officer, immediately after all the votes have been canvassed and tallied and the results announced by him, shall transmit the results of the elections to the President of the Integrated Bar by the fastest means of communication, to be followed by a confirmatory certificate of the said results bearing the names of all elected officers, their respective addresses and the respective offices to which they were elected, together with all the ballots and tally sheets in a separate sealed envelope or envelopes.

SEC. 13. Election contests. – Any member desiring to contest an election shall, within three days after election day, file with the Board of Governors a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor. The decision of the Board thereon shall be final.

SEC. 14. Rules and regulations. – The Chapter may adopt such rules and regulations as it shall see fit, including a minimum attorney’s fees schedule, not inconsistent with these by-laws, the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, and the Integration Rule.

All rules and regulations shall be binding upon all members of the Integrated Bar who render legal services of any kind within the territorial boundaries of the Chapter.

SEC. 15. Minimum attorney’s fees schedule. – Any minimum attorney’s fees schedule adopted shall not be construed as fixing the maximum fee or the reasonable fee to be charged in any given case or situation. Any fees schedule and all amendments thereto shall become effective immediately, but maybe modified or disapproved by the Board of Governors, and shall be filed with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar. The Secretary of the Chapter shall send copies of fees schedules and all amendments thereto to the Secretaries of all other Chapters and the Board of Governors.

SEC. 16 Claims. – Expenses incurred with the approval of the Board of Officers by committees in the performance of official duties shall be proper claims for reimbursement, subject to approval by the Board of Governors and to the provision of Section 14 of the Integration Rule and Section 5 (Positions honorary) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, and to the availability of funds. All claims accompanied by the receipts accomplished in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Board of Governors shall be submitted to the Board of Officers for proper action.

Sec 17. Amendments. – These by-laws may be amended by the Board of Governors with the approval of the Supreme Court. The rules and regulations which may be adopted by the Chapter under the authority of Section 29 (Uniform by-laws) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar may be amended by the vote of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting called for the purpose, subject to the approval of the Board of Governors.

ARTICLE V (Sections 30 to 36) HOUSE OF DELEGATES

SEC. 30. Composition of the House. – The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates composed of not more than one hundred and twenty members apportioned among all the Chapters. On or before December 31, 1974, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Governors shall make a reapportionment of Delegates among all the Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate.

SEC. 31. Membership. – The membership of the House of shall consist of all the Chapter Presidents of the Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice President is already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be members ex officio of the House, without the right to vote.

SEC. 32. Term of office. – The term of office of additional and alternate Delegates shall be coterminous with that of Chapter Delegates.

SEC. 33. Annual Convention. – (a) Unless for special reasons another date is set by
the Board of Governors, the House shall hold an annual convention during the moth of April of each year, at the call of the Board, at such time and place as the Board shall determine. Each Region shall be entitled to host one annual or special convention every nine years.

The convention program shall be prepared by the Board. No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an election year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates.The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of Delegates. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)

(c) At or prior to the annual convention, there shall be published an address by the President on the state of the Integrated Bar, a report of the proceedings, reports of officers and committees, and recommendations submitted in connection with these reports.

(d) Any matter not included in the published convention program may considered, debated or acted upon by the House, upon written petition signed by at least twenty Delegates.

(e) During the deliberations, no persons shall speak for more than five minutes or more than twice on the same matter, unless otherwise authorized by the Chairman.
(f) The House shall be a deliberative body of the Integrated Bar, and its resolutions shall bind the Integrated Bar when concurred in by the Board of Governors.

(g) At all deliberations of the House, whether in annual or special convention, the Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern.

SEC. 34. Special convention. – Special conventions of the House may be called by the Board of Governors motu proprio, or upon written petition therefor filed with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar signed by not less than thirty Delegates. The Board shall set the date, time and place for each special convention. Notice shall be given to all Delegates at least thirty days before the convention, stating the purpose and the urgency thereof as well as the business to be transacted thereat.
SEC. 35. Quorum. – The Delegates present at any session of a convention shall constitute a quorum to do business.

SEC. 36. Duties of Delegates. – The Delegates shall attend every convention of the House, promote the work of the convention, and make reports of the proceedings thereof to their respective Chapters.

ARTICLE VI (Sections 37 to 46) BOARD OF GOVERNORS

SEC. 37. Composition of the Board. – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from the region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the Region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)
SEC. 38. Term of office. – The Governors shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1 immediately following their election to June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified.

SEC. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. – At least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)

SEC. 40. Election contests. – Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall, within two days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the President of the Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the following May 31, and shall be final and conclusive.

SEC. 41. Functions of the Board. – The Board of Governors shall have general charge of the affairs and activities of the Integrated Bar. It shall have authority, inter alia, to:

(a) Fix the date, time and place of every convention of the House of Delegates, subject to the provisions of Section 33 (Annual convention) and 34 (Special conventions);
(b) Make appropriations and authorize disbursements from the funds of the Integrated Bar, subject to the provisions of Sections 14 of the Integration Rule and Section 5 (Positions honorary) of these By-Laws;
(c) Engage the services of employees, define their duties and fix their compensation;
(d) Receive, consider and act on reports and recommendations submitted by the House of Delegates or its committees;
(e) Provide for the publication of the Journal of the Integrated bar;
(f) Administer the Welfare Fund in accordance with such rules and regulations as it may promulgate;
(g) Fill vacancies, however arising, in the positions of officers of the Integrated Bar, subject to the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Integration Rule, and Section 11 (Vacancies), Section 44 (Removal of members), Section 47 (National officers), Section 48 (Other officers), and Section 49 (Terms of Office) of these By-Laws;
(h) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for all members of the Integrated Bar;
(i) Promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of lawyer referral services throughout the Philippines;
(j) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, impose special assessments for specific national purposes, and impose, or recommend in proper cases to the Court the imposition of, sanctions for non-payment or delinquency in the payment thereof;
(k) Prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of the Integration Rule and Presidential Decree No. 181; and
(i) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of the Integrated Bar.

SEC. 42. Meetings. - The Board shall meet regularly once a month, on such date and such time and place as it shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and shall be called by him upon the written request of five members of the Board.

SEC. 43. Quorom. - Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to transact business. However, the Board may take action, without a meeting, by resolution signed by at least five governors, provided that every member of the Board shall have been previously apprised of the contents of the resolution.

SEC. 44. Removal of members. - If the Board of Governors should determine after proper inquiry that any of its members, elective or otherwise, has for any reason become unable to perform his duties, the Board, by resolution of the Majority of the remaining members, may declare his position vacant, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.

Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for cause, including three consecutive absences from Board meetings without justifiable excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. In case of any vacancy in the office of Governor for whatever cause, the delegates from the region shall by majority vote, elect a successor from among the members of the Chapter to which the resigned governor is a member to serve as governor for the unexpired portion of the term. (As amended pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated March 2, 1993)

SEC. 45. Executive Committee. - There shall be an Executive Committee of not less than three Governors, the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of which shall be as prescribed by the Board. The President shall be the chairman thereof.
SEC. 46. Urgent matters. - Should the Executive Committee consider it desirable and imperative that any matter be decided urgently by the Board, and it is not practicable or expedient for the Board to convene, the Executive Committee may, for the purpose, direct a poll of all the members of the Board on that matter, to be taken by correspondence, telegram, radiogram, cablegram, or any other expeditious means, and the effect of such a poll shall be the same as if the votes therein were cast at a regular meeting of the Board.

ARTICLE VII (Sections 47 to 51) NATIONAL OFFICERS

SEC. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions.

SEC. 48. Other officers. - Other officers and employees as the Board may require shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. Such officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar.

SEC. 49. Terms of office. - The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1 following their election until June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified.

In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his functions and duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice President, and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President for the unexpired portion of the term. In the event of the death, resignation, removal or disability of both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term or during the period of disability. Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws, all other officers and employees appointed by the President with the consent of the Board shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such term as the Board may fix.

SEC. 50. Duties of officers. - (a) President: The President shall be the chief executive of the Integrated Bar, and shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Governors.

From assumption of office and for the duration of his term, the President shall dissociate himself from any and all activities that may, in one way or another, restrict or hamper the effective exercise of his powers and performance of his functions and duties.

(b) Executive Vice President: The Executive Vice President shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the President during the absence or inabilility of the latter to act, and shall perform such other functions and duties as are assigned to him by the President and the Board of Governors.
(c) Governors: In addition to his duties as a member of the Board of Governors, each elective Governor shall act as representative of his Region in the Board. He shall promote, coordinate and correlate activities of the Chapters within his Region.
(d) Secretary: The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Governors, and keep a record of all the proceedings thereof; prepare and maintain a register of all members of the Integrated Bar; notify national officers as well as members of national committees of their election or appointment; cause to be prepared the necessary official ballots for the election of Governors; and perform such other duties as are assigned to him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of Governors.

(e) Treasurer: The Treasurer shall collect, receive, record, and disburse all funds of the Integrated Bar; however, no disbursement shall be made except over his signature, countersigned by the President, or in the absence or inability of the President by the Executive Vice President, or in the absence or inability of both, by a member of the Executive Committee designated by the President. He shall render reports of receipts and disbursements as required by the Board of Governors; promptly remit to the Chapters concerned their proportionate shares in the dues and assessments paid by members directly to the national office under Section 23 (Membership dues); assist in the preparation of the annual budget; and perform such other duties as are assigned to him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of Governors. He shall furnish a surety bond at the expense of the Integrated Bar, in such amount as may be required by the Board.

SEC. 51. Delegation of duties. - The functions and duties of the Secretary and the Treasurer may, in their absence or inability, be performed by assistants or employees of the Integrated Bar designated by the President.

ARTICLE VIII (Sections 52 to 67) NATIONAL COMMITTEES

SEC. 52. National Committees. - The Board of Governors shall establish and maintain standing national committees. Until otherwise changed, modified or redefined by the Board, the respective names, powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities of the standing committees shall be as set forth in this Article. The Board shall have authority to create additional standing committees and special committees, and to define their respective powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities.

Every committee shall submit an annual report to the President, but the Board may at any time require any committee to submit a special report.

SEC. 53. Membership of committees. - Each national committee shall consist of such number of members as may be fixed by the Board of Governors. They shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and shall serve for a term of two years, and until their respective successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified. The chairman of each committee shall be designated by the President.
Three consecutive absences of any member from committee meetings without justifiable excuse shall be a ground for the President to appoint his replacement.

SEC. 54. Committee on Chapter Affairs. - This committee shall make studies of, and submit reports and recommendations on, the establishment, organization and operation of all Chapters, the apportionment and reapportionment of the seats in the House of Delegates, and the means and methods of encouraging and coordinating Chapter activities and of promoting maximum involvement and participation of the members of the Integrated Bar in the activities thereof and of their respective Chapters.

SEC. 55. Committee on Legal Aid. - This committee shall promote the establishment and efficient maintenance of Chapter legal aid organizations suited to provide free legal service; direct and supervise all Chapter legal aid organizations; maintain maximum levels of coordination and cooperation with other organizations having similar objectives; receive and solicit aid and assistance from any available and suitable source or sources, provided that the independent character of the legal aid is not impaired; and, in general, do or cause to be done all things necessary and proper for the promotion of legal aid activities, projects and objectives.

SEC. 56. Committee on Administration of Justice. - This committee shall study the organization and operation of the judicial system and recommend appropriate changes in practice and procedure to improve the efficiency thereof, and, in that connection, shall examine all proposed changes in the system.

It shall collate information and submit appropriate recommendations on judicial appointments, judicial tenure and compensation, and retirement pensions.
SEC. 57. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admissions. - This committee shall make continuing studies of, and submit recommendations on, the curriculum and teaching methods in law schools, as well as standards and methods in law schools, as well as standards and methods in determining the qualifications of applicants for admission to the Bar, and whenever requested shall assist in the investigation of the qualifications of persons seeking admission to the Bar.

It shall formulate, and promote or co-sponsor with other groups of institutions, programs designed to afford members of the Integrated Bar suitable opportunities for acquiring, here and abroad, additional professional knowledge, training and skill.
SEC. 58. Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment. - This committee shall formulate the Canons of Professional Responsibility for adoption by the Board of Governors and approval by the Supreme Court, and submit recommendations on methods for the effective enforcement thereof as well as on appropriate amendments thereto.

It shall have authority to express advisory opinions, upon written request of any member, on any matter affecting his own professional conduct. In no case shall the opinion of the committee disclose the name of any party.

The committee may call upon any Chapter officer or Chapter committee member to exchange information as to problems arising under the Canons of Professional Responsibility and to examine grievance procedures. It shall make recommendations to the Board of Governors for reform and improvements in the said procedures.
SEC. 59. Committee on Research Services. This committee shall plan the research services of the Integrated Bar in substantive and adjective law, and, together with other institutions, promote legal research and law reform and development. It shall select areas of the law in need of general study, revision or codification; formulate plans and prepare budgets for specific research projects; assess the availability of qualified personnel to perform research work; and submit recommendations thereon. It shall periodically render progress reports on authorized projects, and provide necessary supervision for the successful completion of each project.

SEC. 60. Committee on Legislation. – This committee shall study all proposed changes in the Constitution and in statutes and laws of general interests or general application and submit reports thereon, and, with the approval of the Board of Governors, shall represent the Integrated Bar in supporting or opposing such proposals.

SEC. 61. Committee on Public Service. – This committee shall prepare and submit plans for advancing public acceptance of the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar, and shall execute such plans as are approved by the Board of Governors. These plans shall include arrangements for disseminating information of interest to the public in relation to the functions of the departments of government, the judicial system and the Bar; and to that end the committee may operate an information bureau and utilize the facilities of the media of public communication.

SEC. 62. Committee on Inter-Professional and Business Relations. – This committee shall maintain liaison between the legal profession and other professions as well as business groups in order to acquaint the latter on the nature and proper scope of the practice of law.

SEC. 63. Committee on Books and Publications. – This committee shall make studies of, and submit recommendations on, matters and materials for publication, and ways and means of assisting in the efficient publications of legal literature at reasonable costs, and of discouraging unnecessary publications or duplication thereof.

SEC. 64. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law. – This committee shall keep the Integrated Bar informed with respect to the practice of law by unauthorized persons and entities, as well as the participation therein of members of the Bar, and recommend ways and means for the elimination and prevention of unauthorized practice of law.

SEC. 65. Committee on Law Reporting. – This committee shall examine and appraise methods of reporting and disseminating legislation, presidential decrees, court decisions, the Rules of Court, and decisions of administrative tribunals and agencies, with particular emphasis on the correction of deficiencies; conduct a continuing study and evaluation of corresponding trends and reforms in other jurisdictions; and submit appropriate recommendations thereon.

SEC. 66. Public Statements. – No committee or member thereof shall publicly express any opinion or conclusion respecting the assigned functions or work of the committee without previous authorization from the Board of Governors or the Executive Committee.
SEC. 67. Finances of committees. – Every committee shall file with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar a detailed statement setting forth necessary data on the funds required in connection with its work for consideration and action by the Board of Governors. No committee shall incur any obligation payable by the Integrated Bar without the Board’s prior approval.

ARTICLE IX (Sections 68 to 75) FISCAL CONTROL

SEC. 68. Fiscal Year. – The Integrated Bar shall operate on fiscal year beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31 of each year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)
SEC. 69. Budget Committee. – The President, with the approval of the Board of Governors, shall appoint a budget committee consisting of not less than three or more than five Governors, with the Executive Vice President as Chairman, whose responsibility shall be the preparation of the annual budget.

SEC. 70. Preparation and approval of the budget. – The preparation, consideration, approval and publication of the budget shall be in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board.

SEC. 71. Automatic re-enactment. – If by the end of any fiscal year the Board shall have failed to pass the budget for the ensuing fiscal year, the budget for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until a new budget is adopted by the Board.

SEC. 72. Amendments to the Budget. – The Board may from time to time amend the budget in order to provide funds for necessary expenditures: Provided, however, that the total of the increases made in the items of the budget, including new items created by such amendments, shall not exceed ten per cent of the total estimated income of the Integrated Bar for the current fiscal year. If the proposed amendments shall cause the total of the increases and the new items to exceed such limitation, the same procedure required for the adoption of the original budget shall be followed.

SEC. 73. Disbursements. – No disbursements shall be made except in accordance with the budget.

SEC. 74. Unexpended balances. – All unexpended balances of appropriations shall revert at the end of every fiscal year to the funds from which they were appropriated.

SEC. 75. Accounting and audit. – The Board shall cause books of accounts to be kept and maintained in accordance with sound accounting practices. An annual external audit of all funds, accounts, receipts and disbursement of the Integrated Bar shall be made without delay after the end of every fiscal year. A summary of such audit shall be published in the following September issue of the Journal of the Integrated Bar.

ARTICLE X
Section 76) JOURNAL

SEC. 76. Journal of the Integrated Bar. – The Board of Governors shall cause to be published a quarterly Journal, and to this end shall be assisted by a board of editorial consultants, and members of which shall be appointed by the President, with the consent of the Board. The editorial consultants shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board.
Every member of the Integrated Bar is entitled to receive a free copy of every issue of the Journal.

ARTICLE XI
(Section 77) AMENDMENTS

SEC. 77. Amendments. – These By-Laws may be amended, modified or repealed by the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors.

ARTICLE XII
(Section 78) EFFECTIVITY

SEC. 78. Effectivity. – These By-Laws shall take effect on November 1, 1974.

IBP election rules

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

CHAPTER BY-LAWS

SEC. 5. Board of Officers. - The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a Public Relations Officer and five Directors, who shall be elected at the biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two years from the FIRST DAY OF APRIL next following their election and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)
SEC. 12, Rules governing elections. - The following rules shall govern elections:

(a) Date and place of elections. - Elections of Officers and Directors shall be held on the last Saturday of February every other year at such time and place as the Board shall designate, which shall be stated in the notice to be sent to every member by personal delivery or by mail not less than thirty days prior to the elections.

(b) Responsibility for the elections. - The preparation of all election paraphernalia, the setting up of registration and canvassing committees, and all other matter relation to the elections, shall be the responsibility and shall be under the supervision and control of the President.

(c) Voter’s list. - Not earlier than twenty-five days nor later than fifteen days prior to the elections, the Secretary shall submit to the Board of Officers a list of the names of all the members entitled to vote. The voters’ list shall then remain closed and shall not be altered except upon direction of the Board. However, it shall be open to inspection by all members, and, upon request, copied thereof shall be furnished to any member upon payment of actual cost.

Any member who is delinquent in the payment of dues or any assessment, including surcharges owing, twenty-five days prior to the day of the elections, shall be excluded from the voters’ list.

(d) Violation. - Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 (Prohibited acts and practiced relative to elections) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar.

(e) Election campaign material. - No election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of the candidate or aspirant on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper shall be allowed, and distribution thereof shall be made only on the day of the elections and only by persons authorized by the officer presiding at the elections.

(f) Eligibility. - No member may be elected to any office whose name is not duly included in the voters’ list, or who is disqualified by the Integrated Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or by these by-laws.

(g) Nomination of candidates. - Any eligible member may, upon his written consent, be nominated to any office: Provided, that no member may be a candidate for more than one office. Every nomination shall be made orally by a member other than the nominee, and shall be limited to a statement of the full name of the nominee. No member who is not personally present at the election meeting may be nominated. No nomination other than on the floor shall be allowed. In no case shall any nomination or campaign speech be permitted.

(h) Disqualification proceedings. - Any question relation to the eligibility of a candidate must be raised prior to the casting of ballots, and shall be immediately decided by the presiding officer. An appeal from such decision may be taken to the members in attendance who shall forthwith resolve the appeal by plurality vote.

Voting shall be by raising of hands. The decision of the member shall be final, and the elections shall thereafter proceed. Recourse to the Board of Governors may be had in accordance with Section 13 (Election contests) hereof.

(i) Voting. - Voting for Officers and Directors shall be by secret ballot. Official ballots shall be provided for the purpose. Voting by proxy shall not be allowed.
(j) Canvassing of ballots. - The presiding officer shall organize as many committees as are necessary composed of three non-candidates each, which shall canvass all votes cast in the elections immediately after the last ballot shall have been cast. Canvassing, when started, shall be continuous until finished and shall be within the view and observation of as many members as possible. In the reading of the ballots, the rules embodied in the general election law shall be followed. The chairman and members of each committee shall certify to the correctness of the tally made by them.

(k) Certification of election results. - Elections shall be determined by plurality vote. Any tie vote shall be broken by drawing of lots. The presiding officer, immediately after all the votes have been canvassed and tallied and the results announced by him, shall transmit the results of the elections to the President of the Integrated Bar by the fastest means of communication, to be followed by a confirmatory certificate of the said results bearing the names of all elected officers, their respective addresses and the respective offices to which they were elected, together with all the ballots and tally sheets in a separate sealed envelope or envelopes.

* * * * * *

Atty. Laserna runs as director of IBP Leyte Chapter, Feb. 26, 2011, Tacloban City.

Pls see attached resume of Atty. M. J. Laserna Jr., who is running as a director of IBP Leyte Chapter on Feb. 26, 2011 in Tacloban City. Pls forward to your lawyer friends in Leyte. Thanks.

Court interpreter; duties of.

FREDDY H. REYES vs. VIVIAN L. PABILANE, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAGKAWAYAN, QUEZON, A.M. No. P-09-2696, [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2956-P], January 12, 2011


RESOLUTION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:



x x x.
By Memorandum of August 6, 2009,[7] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), passing on the duties of court interpreters in this wise:



x x x Among the duties of court interpreters is to prepare and sign “all Minutes of the session” (Manual for Clerks of Court). After every session, they must prepare the Minutes and attach to it the record. It will not take an hour to prepare it. The Minutes is a very important document because it gives a brief summary of the events that took place at the session or hearing of a case. It is, in fact, a capsulized history of the case at a given session or a hearing, for it states the date and time of session; the names of the judge, clerk of court, court stenographer and court interpreter who were present; the names of the counsel for parties who appeared; the party presenting evidence marked; and the date of then next hearing. In criminal cases, the Minutes also includes data concerning the number of pages of the stenographic notes. (underscoring supplied),



concluded that respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty for failure to enter into the minutes of the hearings of April 7, 2006 and August 4, 2006 the accurate and complete documentary evidence marked, and accordingly recommended that she be fined in the amount of P3,000.00.



The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA well taken.



A court interpreter is duty-bound to prepare and sign the minutes of court sessions[8] which is an important document, for it gives a brief summary of the events that take place thereat including a statement of the date and time of the session; the name of the judge, clerk of court, court stenographer, and court interpreter who are present; the names of the counsel for the parties who appear; the parties presenting evidence; the names of the witnesses who testified; the documentary evidence marked; and the date of the next hearing.[9]



In the present case, respondent failed to reflect in the minutes of the April 7 and August 4, 2006 hearings in Civil Case No. 1349 the correct documentary evidence offered in evidence. Such failure constitutes simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[10]



Simple neglect of duty is, under Section 52 (B) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[11] classified as a

less grave offense punishable by one month and one day to six months suspension for the first offense.



Under Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, a fine may be imposed in the alternative.[12]



Considering that this appears to be respondent’s first infraction, the Court finds in order the OCA recommendation to impose on her a fine in the amount of P3,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.



WHEREFORE, respondent Vivian L. Pabilane, Court Interpreter of Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon, presently on detail at the Municipal Trial Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon, is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is FINED the amount of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.



SO ORDERED.

Nullity of marriage under Art. 36, Family Code; conjugal property (co-ownership rule) need not be liquidated in the same judgment.

ALAIN M. DIÑO vs. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011


X x x.

The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.7 Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void,8 such as petitioner and respondent in the case before the Court.

Article 147 of the Family Code provides:

Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.


For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:

1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.9


All these elements are present in this case and there is no question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property relations between petitioner and respondent.

We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis because Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. Section 19(1) of the Rule provides:

Sec. 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.


The pertinent provisions of the Family Code cited in Section 19(1) of the Rule are:

Article 50. The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also apply in proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.10

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.



All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community of the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

Article 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.

It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family Code does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared void without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties.

Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates a situation where a second or bigamous marriage was contracted. Under Article 40, “[t]he absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” Thus we ruled:

x x x where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void.11
Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages which are valid until they are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment.12 In both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by absolute community of property13 or conjugal partnership of gains14 unless the parties agree to a complete separation of property in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since the property relations of the parties is governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.

In this case, petitioner’s marriage to respondent was declared void under Article 3615 of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by petitioner and respondent are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.16 The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, “[p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. x x x.” It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage.


WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
SO ORDERED.

TRO; writ of preliminary injunction; judge fined for gross ignorance of the law.

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255


SPOUSES DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO vs.
JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 43, GINGOOG CITY,

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3335-RTJ)
January 17, 2011




x x x.


We find the recommendations of the OCA to be well-taken.



Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court on preliminary injunction, pertinent to this case, provide—



SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.—A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when:



(a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and



(b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued.



(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.



However, where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.



(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.



SEC. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception.—No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted. The court shall also determine, within the same period, whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.



However, subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance, but shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to the service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided herein.



In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the said period, the temporary restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial declaration to that effect, and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the same ground for which it was issued.



However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further orders.



The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition within six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.[13]







Culled from the foregoing provisions, particularly with respect to the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as amended, it is clear that, on the matter of the issuance of an ex parte 72-hour TRO, an executive judge of a multiple-sala court (applicable to respondent judge), or the presiding judge of a single-sala court, is empowered to issue the same in matters of extreme emergency, in order to prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury to the applicant. However, it is also an unequivocal provision that, after the issuance of the 72-hour TRO, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court is bound to comply with Section 4(c) of the same rule with respect to the service of summons and the documents to be served therewith.



The records of this case clearly show that respondent judge failed to cause the raffle of Civil Case No. 2009-905, since RTC, Gingoog City, is a multiple-sala court, or to cause the notification and service of summons to complainants after he issued the 72-hour TRO. Respondent judge’s July 7, 2009 Order was explicit when the civil case was set for summary hearing on July 14, 2009, purportedly to determine whether or not the TRO issued could be extended for another period. Thus, it is manifest that respondent judge had directly assumed jurisdiction over the civil action and all together disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 4(c), Rule 58, relative to the raffle in the presence of the parties, and service of summons. This is gross error.



Even assuming that there was a valid raffle to RTC, Branch 43, Gingoog City, where respondent judge acts as the presiding magistrate, the supposed extreme urgency of the issuance of the 72-hour TRO was belied by his setting of the required summary hearing for the determination of the necessity of extending the 72-hour TRO to 20 days, one week after the issuance thereof. Indeed, Section 5, Rule 58 is explicit that such summary hearing must be conducted within the said 72-hour period. Notwithstanding the explanation of respondent judge that he could not set the required summary hearing except on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, it should be noted that July 7, 2009, the date of the issuance of the 72-hour TRO, was a Tuesday, yet respondent judge could have set the summary hearing on July 8, 2009, a Wednesday. He failed to do so on the mistaken notion that, aside from his alleged hectic schedule, he could, at any time, extend the 72-hour TRO for another period as long as the total period did not exceed 20 days.



What is more appalling is that respondent judge extended the 72-hour TRO, which had already and obviously expired, into a full 20-day TRO. An already expired TRO can no longer be extended. Respondent judge should have known that the TRO he issued in his capacity as an acting executive judge was valid for only 72 hours. Beyond such time, the TRO automatically expires, unless, before the expiration of the said period, he, supposedly in his capacity as presiding judge to whom the case was raffled, conducted the required summary hearing in order to extend the TRO’s lifetime. Indubitably, a 72-hour TRO, issued by an executive judge, is a separate and distinct TRO which can stand on its own, regardless of whether it is eventually extended or not. It is not, as respondent judge attempts to impress upon us, a mere part of the 20-day TRO issued by a presiding judge to whom the case is raffled.



Moreover, respondent judge committed another blunder when he ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction without the required hearing and without prior notice to the defendants, herein complainants. The records plainly disclose that the only hearing conducted prior to the August 11, 2009 Resolution granting the preliminary injunction was the July 14, 2009 summary hearing for the extension of the 72-hour TRO. This could be gathered from the August 11, 2009 Resolution, wherein respondent judge declared—



During the hearing for the determination of the propriety (sic) the Temporary Restraining Order should be extended or whether the Writ of Injunction be granted, the plaintiff presented Christina M. Obico, who in essence testified that she operated fish cages at Gingoog Bay. x x x.[14]



Again, Rule 58, as amended, mandates a full and comprehensive hearing for the determination of the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, separate from the summary hearing for the extension of the 72-hour TRO. The preliminary injunction prayed for by the applicant can only be heard after the trial court has ordered the issuance of the usual 20-day TRO. Within that period of 20 days, the court shall order the party sought to be enjoined to show cause at a specified time and place why the injunction should not be granted. During that same period, the court shall also determine the propriety of granting the preliminary injunction and then issue the corresponding order to that effect. In the case of respondent judge, he gravely failed to comply with what the rule requires, i.e., to give complainants the opportunity to comment or object, through a full-blown hearing, to the writ of injunction prayed for. Instead, respondent judge railroaded the entire process by treating the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO as the very same hearing required for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.



Verily, the absence of the hearing required by the Rules of Court is downright reprehensible and, thus, should not be countenanced. The requirement of a hearing is so fundamental that failure to comply with it not only amounts to gross ignorance of rules and procedure, but also to an outright denial of due process to the party denied such a hearing. Undoubtedly, the acts and omissions of respondent judge warrant sanction from this Court.







Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law or of the rules, and that, when committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, the rule applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. When the law or the rule is so elementary, not to be aware of it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court proficiency in the law, and the duty to maintain professional competence at all times. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge is expected to keep abreast of the developments and amendments thereto, as well as of prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.[15]



In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. However, the assailed judicial acts must not be in gross violation of clearly established law or procedure, which every judge must be familiar with. Every magistrate presiding over a court of law must have the basic rules at the palm of his hands and maintain professional competence at all times.[16]



Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross ignorance of the law or procedure as a serious offense for which the imposable sanction ranges from dismissal from the service to suspension from office, and a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. Under the premises, this Court finds it appropriate to impose on respondent judge the penalty of a fine in the amount of P25,000.00.







WHEREFORE, Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, is found liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, and is hereby meted a fine of P25,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same, or any similar infraction in the future, shall be dealt with more severely.



SO ORDERED.

Harassment suit vs. lawyer dismissed

A.C. No. 8620


JESSIE R. DE LEON
vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO,

A.C. No. 8620
January 12, 2011



x x x.

Ruling



We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous complaint.



I

Attorney’s Obligation to tell the truth



All attorneys in the Philippines, including the respondent, have sworn to the vows embodied in following Lawyer’s Oath,[7] viz:



I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.





The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, providing:[8]



CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.



Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.



CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.



Rule 10.01 - 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 foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients. Being also servants of the Law, attorneys are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others.[9] The least they can do in that regard is to refrain from engaging in any form or manner of unlawful conduct (which broadly includes any act or omission contrary to law, but does not necessarily imply the element of criminality even if it is broad enough to include such element).[10]



To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest value, for, as the Court has said in Young v. Batuegas:[11]



A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court” and he shall “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.” He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.





Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but also the immunity from liability to others for as long as the performance of their obligations to their clients does not depart from their character as servants of the Law and as officers of the Court. In particular, the statements they make in behalf of their clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of privilege is necessary and essential in ensuring the unhindered service to their clients’ causes and in protecting the clients’ confidences. With the cloak of privilege, they can freely and courageously speak for their clients, verbally or in writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, without running the risk of incurring criminal prosecution or actions for damages.[12]



Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by reason of their office and in recognition of the vital role they play in the administration of justice, attorneys hold the privilege and right to practice law before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or offices only during good behavior.[13]



II

Respondent did not violate the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility





On April 17, 2006, the respondent filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the persons whom the Government as plaintiff named as defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN.[14] He alleged therein that:



2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby made known that defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had already sold the two (2) parcels of land, together with the building and improvements thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (148805) 139876 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, to Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 – 502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence, Leonardo Lim and William Lim are their successors-in-interest and are the present lawful owners thereof.



In order to properly and fully protect their rights, ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as substitute/representative parties in this action. In this manner, a complete and expeditious resolution of the issues raised in this case can be reached without undue delay. A photo copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property, executed by herein defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in favor of said Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, is hereto attached as Annex “1” hereof.

xxx

21. There is improper joinder of parties in the complaint. Consequently, answering defendants are thus unduly compelled to litigate in a suit regarding matters and facts as to which they have no knowledge of nor any involvement or participation in.



22. Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in bringing this suit, as it was the one who, by its governmental authority, issued the titles to the subject property.



This action is barred by the principles of prescription and laches for plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in brining this suit, particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein answering defendants acquired the subject property in good faith and for value. If truly plaintiff has a clear and valid cause of action on the subject property, it should not have waited thirty (30) years to bring suit.





Two years later, or on April 21, 2008, De Leon filed his complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. 4674MN.[15] He expressly named therein as defendants vis-à-vis his intervention not only the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants, but also their sons Leonardo Lim, married to Sally Khoo, and William Lim, married to Sally Lee, the same persons whom the respondent had already alleged in the answer, supra, to be the transferees and current owners of the parcels of land.[16]



The following portions of De Leon’s complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. 4674MN are relevant, viz:




2. Defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, are Filipino citizens with addresses at 504 Plaza del Conde, Manila and at 46 C. Arellano St., San Agustin, Malabon City, where they may be served with summons and other court processes;



3. Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are all of legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501-502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila, alleged purchasers of the property in question from defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu;



4. Defendants Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City holds office in Malabon City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes. He is charged with the duty, among others, of registering decrees of Land Registration in Malabon City under the Land Registration Act;

xxx

7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner of a parcel of land located in Malabon City described in TCT no. M-15183 of the Register of Deeds of Malabon City, photocopy of which is attached to this Complaint as Annex “G”, and copy of the location plan of the aforementioned property is attached to this complaint as Annex “H” and is made an integral part hereof;



8. That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters on intervenor’s property, most of them employees of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee who had gained access to intervenor’s property and built their houses without benefit of any building permits from the government who had made their access to intervenor’s property thru a two panel metal gate more or less 10 meters wide and with an armed guard by the gate and with permission from defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and/or and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee illegally entered intervenor’s property thru a wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now separating intervenor’s property from the former esquinita which is now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu’s and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo’s and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee’s property and this illegally allowed his employees as well as their relatives and friends thereof to illegally enter intervenor’s property through the ladders defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu installed in their wall and also allowed said employees and relatives as well as friends to build houses and shacks without the benefit of any building permit as well as permit to occupy said illegal buildings;



9. That the enlargement of the properties of spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had resulted in the closure of street lot no. 3 as described in TCT no. 143828, spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu having titled the street lot no. 3 and placed a wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus closing any exit or egress or entrance to intervenor’s property as could be seen from Annex “H” hereof and thus preventing intervenor from entering into his property resulted in preventing intervenor from fully enjoying all the beneficial benefits from his property;





10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and later on defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are the only people who could give permission to allow third parties to enter intervenor’s property and their control over intervenor’s property is enforced through his armed guard thus exercising illegal beneficial rights over intervenor’s property at intervenor’s loss and expense, thus depriving intervenor of legitimate income from rents as well as legitimate access to intervenor’s property and the worst is preventing the Filipino people from enjoying the Malabon Navotas River and enjoying the right of access to the natural fruits and products of the Malabon Navotas River and instead it is defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee using the public property exclusively to enrich their pockets;

xxx

13. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee were confederating, working and helping one another in their actions to inhibit intervenor Jessie de Leon to gain access and beneficial benefit from his property;



On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing all the defendants named in De Leon’s complaint in intervention, responded in an answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim,[17] stating that “spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu xxx are now both deceased,” to wit:



xxx

2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint are ADMITTED, with the qualification that defendants-spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lim, William Lim and Sally Lee Lim are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-35929, issued by the Register of Deeds for Malabon City, having long ago acquired the same from the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, who are now both deceased. Copy of the TCT No. M-35929 is attached hereto as Annexes “1” and “1-A”. The same title has already been previously submitted to this Honorable Court on December 13, 2006.

xxx



The respondent subsequently submitted to the RTC a so-called clarification and submission,[18] in which he again adverted to the deaths of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, as follows:



1. On March 19, 2009, herein movants-defendants Lim filed before this Honorable Court a Motion for Substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint of the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DENR;



2. The Motion for Substitution is grounded on the fact that the two (2) parcels of land, with the improvements thereon, which are the subject matter of the instant case, had long been sold and transferred by the principal defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu to herein complaint-in-intervention defendants Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale, a copy of which is attached to said Motion as Annex “1” thereof.



3. Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and conveyed the subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or legal interest on the property. It is on this factual ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and certainly not on the wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the same is based on the death of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu.



4. Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu no longer has any significant relevance to the instant Motion. To, however, show the fact of their death, photo copy of their respective death certificates are attached hereto as Annexes “1” and “2” hereof.



5. The Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint dated March 18, 2009 shows in detail why there is the clear, legal and imperative need to now substitute herein movants-defendants Lim for defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in the said principal complaint.



6. Simply put, movants-defendants Lim have become the indispensable defendants in the principal complaint of plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful owners of the subject property and the real parties-in-interest in this case. Without them, no final determination can be had in the Principal complaint.



7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, which is the subject of his complaint-in-intervention, is identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein movants-defendants Lim, and likewise, may as well be a proper subject of the Principal Complaint of plaintiff DENR.



8. Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the fact that herein movants-defendants Lim should be substituted as defendants in the principal complaint as contained in their Manifestation dated June 3, 2009, which has been filed in this case.



WHEREFORE, herein movants-defendants Lim most respectfully submit their Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint and pray that the same be granted.

xxx



Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making the averments in the aforequoted pleadings of the defendants?



A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.



Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the respondent’s pleadings might have created any impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, we still cannot hold the respondent guilty of any dishonesty or falsification. For one, the respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with counterclaim and cross-claim on April 17, 2006. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, having made clear at the start that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer the actual owners of the affected properties due to the transfer of ownership even prior to the institution of the action, and that the actual owners (i.e., Leonardo and William Lim) needed to be substituted in lieu of said spouses, whether the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living or already deceased as of the filing of the pleadings became immaterial. And, lastly, De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the action as a voluntary intervenor charged him with notice of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also had an actual awareness of such other persons, as his own complaint in intervention, supra, bear out in its specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and William Lim, and their respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any dishonesty or falsification in relation to him or to any other party.



III

Good faith must always motivate any complaint
against a Member of the Bar





According to Justice Cardozo,[19] “xxx the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored.”



A lawyer’s reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.



The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the sake of harassing the respondent, either to vex him for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No. 4674MN, or to get even for an imagined wrong in relation to the subject matter of the pending action, or to accomplish some other dark purpose. The worthlessness of the accusation – apparent from the beginning – has impelled us into resolving the complaint sooner than later.





WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for utter lack of merit.



SO ORDERED.

Abusive, inefficient sheriff

A.M. No. P-10-2817



CORAZON TENORIO, represented by IMELDA TENORIO-ORTIZ vs.
ALYN C. PERLAS, Sheriff III,

A.M. No. P-10-2817
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
09-3089-P]
January 26, 2011




This administrative complaint against Sheriff Alyn C. Perlas (Sheriff Perlas), Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City stems from a complaint filed by Corazon Tenorio (Tenorio), represented by her attorney-in-fact Imelda Tenorio-Ortiz, charging Sheriff Perlas with Oppression, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct under Republic Act No. (RA) 6713 and with violations of RA 3019 relative to the implementation of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment in Civil Case No. 15251, entitled 747 Lumber and Construction Supply v. Spouses Edgardo Pile and Marissa Pile for Sum of Money.



x x x.


According to the letter-complaint of Tenorio, on December 22, 2008, Sheriff Perlas, accompanied by other persons, arrived at her store, Ten Rey Gravel and Sand and Construction Materials, located at No. 377 McArthur Highway, Corazon, Calumpit, Bulacan.[1] Upon their arrival, Sheriff Perlas served upon her a Notice of Levy on Attachment clearly addressed to spouses Edgardo Pile and Marissa Pile (spouses Pile) of Apalit, Pampanga.[2] Tenorio emphasized that Sheriff Perlas served the notice in a discourteous and arrogant manner.[3]



After this, Tenorio showed Sheriff Perlas the Certificate of Car Registration of their two (2) units of dump trucks and pleaded to her not to take the trucks away because they were the registered owners of the trucks. However, despite this, Sheriff Perlas forcibly took the two (2) units of trucks without even verifying with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) as to who were the true registered owners of the trucks.[4]



Aggrieved, Tenorio filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated January 12, 2009 before the Office of the Court Administrator, charging Sheriff Perlas with Oppression, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct under RA 6713 and with Violation of RA 3019. According to Tenorio, Sheriff Perlas used her public office as Sheriff to oppress and harass her. Further, Tenorio said that the humiliating manner by which Sheriff Perlas rudely and insolently served the Notice of Levy on her caused her serious mental anxieties, moral shock, and sleepless nights.[5]



Finally, Tenorio added in her Complaint-Affidavit that Sheriff Perlas received PhP 50,000 from 747 Lumber & Construction Supply, Inc. as evidenced by the affidavit of Edgardo Pile.[6] In his affidavit, Edgardo Pile stated that he saw the trucks parked in the vicinity of 747 Lumber & Construction Supply; and that despite explaining to the owner of the store who the true owners of the subject vehicles were, he refused to surrender them, saying that he paid Sheriff Perlas money for them.



x x x.


On May 14, 2010, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (Court Administrator) issued his evaluation and recommendation on the case. In his evaluation, the Court Administrator found that respondent Sheriff Perlas was grossly inefficient and guilty of misconduct in implementing the Writ on December 22, 2008. As a result, the Court Administrator recommended the following:



(1) The complaint against Alyn C. Perlas, Sheriff III, OCC – MeTC, Pasig City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

(2) Sheriff Perlas be found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and be FINED in the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely in the future; and

(3) Respondent Perlas be directed to EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice the receipt of P 50,000 from the plaintiff for the service of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Notice of Levy on Attachment.



We find the evaluation and recommendations of the Court Administrator well-taken.



Well-settled is the rule that “[t]he duty of a sheriff in enforcing writs of execution is ministerial and not discretionary.”[12] However, “errors in the levy of properties do not necessarily give rise to liability if circumstances exist showing that the erroneous levy was done in good faith.”[13]



In the instant case, the conduct of Sheriff Perlas in implementing the Writ is inexcusable. The facts clearly show that the two (2) trucks seized by her did not belong to the spouses Pile but to herein complainant, Tenorio. What is more, she could have acted in good faith and checked from the LTO the identity of the registered owners of the said vehicles before proceeding with their seizure.



In Malmis v. Bungabong, the Court explained the proper conduct that sheriffs must exercise when performing their functions, viz:



While it is true that sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to serve court writs, execute all processes and carry into effect all court orders promptly and expeditiously, it needs to be pointed out that this ministerial duty is not without limitation. In the performance of their duties, they are deemed to know what is inherently right and inherently wrong and are bound to discharge such duties with prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their functions with due care and utmost diligence because, in serving the court’s processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)



Thus, Sheriff Perlas’ explanations deserve scant consideration. She failed to discharge her functions with due care and utmost diligence. Mere failure on the part of Tenorio and the drivers to present the certificates of registration of the vehicles at the time of taking should have prompted her to exhaust all means to discover the true identity of the owners.



Moreover, as to the alleged turn-over of the trucks made by Sheriff Perlas in favor of the attaching party after receiving money from the latter, there is lack of substantial evidence to prove it. Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule, i.e., such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] The standard of substantial evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.[16] In the instant case, aside from the affidavit of Edgardo Pile, no other evidence was presented by the complainant to support the allegation that Sheriff Perlas received the money. Such cannot be considered substantial enough to support a finding of a serious charge.



Accordingly, Sheriff Perlas is only guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her functions. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. More particularly, misconduct is the unlawful behavior of a public officer. It means the “intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.”[17] In order for misconduct to constitute an administrative offense, it should be related to or connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[18]



Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, simple misconduct is considered a less serious offense, sanctioned with suspension without pay for not less than one (1) month but not more than three (3) months, or a fine of not less than ten thousand tesos (PhP 10,000) but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (PhP 20,000).



WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff Alyn C. Perlas is found GUILTY of simple misconduct. She is meted the penalty of a FINE of eleven thousand pesos (PhP 11,000). She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar or analogous infractions in the future shall be dealt with more severely.



SO ORDERED.

Execution of judgment; amounts payable.

A.M. No. P-09-2627



REINA EDENLYNE GARCIA vs. ROBERT V. ALEJO, Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City,
A.M. No. P-09-2627, January 26, 2011



x x x.


The Court’s Ruling



We adopt the recommendation of the OCA.



Pertinent portions of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court read:



Section 9. Sheriffs and other persons serving processes. – x x x In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.





A sheriff may collect fees for his expenses from the party requesting the execution of a writ but only in accordance with the procedure laid down in the aforecited provision.



Clearly, the steps that have to be followed before additional sums may be required are: first, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; second, he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; third, the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-oficio sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall disburse liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.12





Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interest of the service because even assuming arguendo such payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. Sheriffs cannot receive gratuities or voluntary payments from parties they are ordered to assist.13 Court personnel shall not accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they receive or are entitled to in their official capacity.14



The Court notes the OCA’s finding about Alejo’s receipt of voluntary payments:



x x x It must be noted that [Alejo] failed to refute [Garcia’s] allegations that in six (6) instances (the five instances were listed in the summary of expenses of Concorde and the one instance where in the cash voucher of the amount of P12,500.00 was signed by [Alejo] himself), he received sheriff’s fees in the total amount of P85,000.00 without court approval. In fact, he never categorically denied having received said fees. He did not even question the veracity of the summary of expenses presented by [Garcia]. Instead, in order to prove that his actions were above board he merely submitted a copy of the Sheriff’s Commission on Sale duly collected and duly receipted by the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC Makati City but which was never raised as an issue in the complaint.15





Moreover, Alejo received money for extra work he rendered for Concorde. Alejo’s defense that he is not using government time in doing his duties is not tenable considering that there is a prohibition for all officials and employees of the judiciary to engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession even outside office hours.16 Alejo’s acts can be considered as moonlighting, which, though not normally considered as a serious misconduct, amounts to malfeasance in office.17



Thus, for failure to observe the procedure in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, Alejo is guilty of dereliction of duty. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dereliction of duty calls for a suspension of one month and one day to six months.18 Alejo’s moonlighting activities, on the other hand, constitute violation of reasonable office rules and regulations of which reprimand is the penalty for the first offense, suspension for 1-30 days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. According to Section 55 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. Alejo also had been previously admonished in A.M. No. P-08-2428 for abuse of authority. We modify the OCA’s recommendation of suspension for a period of three months without pay to suspension for a period of six months without pay.



WHEREFORE, Robert V. Alejo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City, is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay for dereliction of duty and violation of office rules and regulations as well as the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Alejo is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.



SO ORDERED.

Reitred judge fined; misconduct.

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734




FLORENDA V. TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR.,
Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental,

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1933-MTJ]
January 19, 2011




This administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by complainant Florenda V. Tobias against respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. Complainant charged respondent with corruption for allegedly offering “package deals” to litigants who plan to file cases in his court.



In her verified Complaint[1] dated June 6, 2007, complainant alleged that respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. offers “package deals” for cases filed in the court where he presides. She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister, Lorna V. Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero[2] allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case which they contemplated to file against the spouses Raymundo and Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of P10,000.00 and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. It was made clear that they would not get any judicial relief from their squatter problem unless they accepted the package deal.



Further, complainant alleged that on June 23, 2006, Lorna Vollmer, accompanied by Salvacion Fegidero, delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent at his residence. Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed in respondent’s court, entitled Reynold V. Tobias, represented by his Attorney–in-fact Lorna V. Vollmer v. Spouses Raymundo Batalla and Francisca Batalla, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-007-V.[3] Respondent allegedly assigned a certain Atty. Robert G. Juanillo to represent the complainant in the ejectment case. Complainant stated that respondent, however, immediately demanded for an additional payment of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused to give the additional amount and earned the ire of respondent. She asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request Atty. Robert Juanillo to voluntarily withdraw as counsel,[4] which he did on April 16, 2007. Complainant also asked Vollmer to withdraw the case.[5] Respondent granted the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on April 23, 2007 and the Motion to Withdraw Case on May 3, 2007.[6]



x x x.

The OCA found respondent’s acts, consisting of (1) advising Lorna Vollmer about the ejectment case she was about to file before his court; (2) recommending Atty. Robert Juanillo as counsel of the complainant in the ejectment case; and (3) helping complainant to prepare the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, to be violative of the rules on integrity,[21] impartiality,[22] and propriety[23] contained in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.



x x x.

The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating Judge Guanzon that complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers “package deals” to prospective litigants in his court.



However, the investigation revealed that respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by the OCA, the said acts of respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity), Section 2 of Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,[24] thus:



CANON 2



INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.



SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.



x x x x



CANON 3



IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.



x x x x



SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

CANON 4

PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.



The aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct. “Misconduct” means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.[25] “Gross” has been defined as “out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”[26] Respondent’s act of preparing the Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel of complainant is inexcusable. In so doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala and was acted upon by him.



Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.[27] Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the sanctions against a respondent guilty of a serious charge may be any of the following:



1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;







2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or



3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.





In imposing the proper sanction against respondent, the Court takes note that respondent had been found guilty of grave misconduct in A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509[28] and was fined P20,000.00, with a warning against repetition of the same or similar act. Moreover, per verification from court records, respondent compulsorily retired from the service on May 17, 2009.



WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., former Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to deduct the fine of P25,000.00 from the retirement benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.