Pimentel vs Llorente

A.C. No. 4680. August 29, 2000

Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M.
Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach of
trust, and violation of the lawyers oath in connection with the discharge of
their duties as members of the Pasig ity !oard of anvassers in the May ",
#$$% elections. Salayon, then election officer of the ommission on
&lections '(M&L&), was designated chairman of said !oard, while
Llorente, who was then ity Prosecutor of Pasig ity, served as its ex
oficio vice*chairman as provided by law. omplainant, now a senator, was
also a candidate for the Senate in that election.
omplainant alleges that, in violation of +.A. ,o. --.-, /01'b),

respondents
tampered with the votes received by him. omplainant maintains that by
signing the So2s and o despite respondents 3nowledge that some of the
entries therein were false, the latter committed a serious breach of public
trust and of their lawyers oath.
+espondents denied the allegations against them. They alleged that the
preparation of the So2s was made by the #0 canvassing committees which
the !oard had constituted to assist in the canvassing. They claimed that the
errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mista3e,
oversight, and4or fatigue.
Issue: 5hether the respondents are guilty of misconduct
el!: 6es. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as a government official. 7owever, if the misconduct also constitutes
a violation of the ode of Professional +esponsibility or the lawyers oath
or is of such character as to affect his 8ualification as a lawyer or shows
moral delin8uency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.
!y certifying as true and correct the So2s in 8uestion, respondents
committed a breach of +ule #.9# of the ode which stipulates that a lawyer
shall not engage in :unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.; !y
e<press provision of anon -, this is made applicable to lawyers in the
government service. =n addition, they li3ewise violated their oath of office
as lawyers to :do no falsehood.;
=n Sabayle v. Tandayag the ourt said>
There is a strong public interest involved in re8uiring lawyers . . . to
behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. =t is
important that the common caricature that lawyers by and large do not
feel compelled to spea3 the truth and to act honestly, should not
become a common reality. . .
=t may be added that, as lawyers in the government service, respondents
were under greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession
because a public office is a public trust.
+espondents participation in the irregularities herein reflects on the legal
profession, in general, and on lawyers in government, in particular. Such
conduct in the performance of their official duties, involving no less than
the ascertainment of the popular will as e<pressed through the ballot, would
have merited for them suspension were it not for the fact that this is their
first administrative transgression and, in the case of Salayon, after a long
public service. ?nder the circumstances, a penalty of fine in the amount
of P#9,999.99 for each of the respondents should be sufficient.
S&(,@ @=2=S=(,
"A.C. No. 4680. August 29, 2000#
A$%ILIN& $. PI'(N)(L, *+., complainant, vs. A)),-. AN)&NI&
'. LL&+(N)( an! LI.A,A P. -ALA,&N, respondents.
/ ( C I - I & N
'(N/&0A, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M.
Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach of
trust, and violation of the lawyers oath in connection with the discharge of
their duties as members of the Pasig ity !oard of anvassers in the May ",
#$$% elections. Salayon, then election officer of the ommission on
&lections '(M&L&), was designated chairman of said !oard, while
Llorente, who was then ity Prosecutor of Pasig ity, served as its ex
oficio vice*chairman as provided by law.
A#B
omplainant, now a senator, was
also a candidate for the Senate in that election.
omplainant alleges that, in violation of +.A. ,o. --.-, /01'b),
A0B
respondents tampered with the votes received by him, with the result that,
as shown in the Statements of 2otes 'So2s) and ertificate of anvass
'o) pertaining to #,0-C precincts of Pasig ity, '#) senatorial candidates
Duan Ponce &nrile, Anna @omini8ue oseteng, Eregorio 7onasan, Marcelo
Fernan, +amon Mitra, and +odolfo !iaGon were credited with votes which
were above the number of votes they actually received while, on the other
hand, petitioners votes were reducedH '0) in #9# precincts, &nriles votes
were in e<cess of the total number of voters who actually voted thereinH and
'C) the votes from 00 precincts were twice recorded in
#" So2s. omplainant maintains that, by signing the So2s and o
despite respondents 3nowledge that some of the entries therein were false,
the latter committed a serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers
oath.
+espondents denied the allegations against them. They alleged that
the preparation of the So2s was made by the #0 canvassing committees
which the !oard had constituted to assist in the canvassing. They claimed
that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest
mista3e, oversight, and4or fatigue.
=n his onsolidated +eply, complainant counters that respondents
should be held responsible for the illegal padding of the votes considering
the nature and e<tent of the irregularities and the fact that the canvassing of
the election returns was done under their control and supervision.
(n @ecember ., #$$", the =ntegrated !ar of the Philippines, to which
this matter had been referred pursuant to +ule #C$*!, /#C, in relation to /09
of the +ules of ourt, recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lac3
of merit.
ACB
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March ##, #$$$,
but his motion was denied in a resolution of the =!P !oard of Eovernors
dated April 00, #$$$. (n Dune ., #$$$, he filed this petition pursuant to
+ule #C$*!, /#0'c).
=t appears that complainant li3ewise filed criminal charges against
respondents before the (M&L& '&.(. ase ,o. $-*##C0) for violation
of +.A. ,o. --.-, /01'b). =n its resolution dated Danuary ", #$$", the
(M&L& dismissed complainants charges for insufficiency of
evidence. 7owever, on a petition for certiorari filed by complainant,
A.B
this
ourt set aside the resolution and directed the (M&L& to file
appropriate criminal charges against respondents. +econsideration was
denied on August #%, 0999.
onsidering the foregoing facts, we hold that respondents are guilty of
misconduct.
First. +espondent Llorente see3s the dismissal of the present petition
on the ground that it was filed late. 7e contends that a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under +ule #C$*!, /#0'c)
A%B
and,
therefore, the filing of such motion before the =!P !oard of Eovernors did
not toll the running of the period of appeal. +espondent further contends
that, assuming such motion can be filed, petitioner nevertheless failed to
indicate the date of his receipt of the April 00, #$$$ resolution of the =!P
denying his motion for reconsideration so that it cannot be ascertained
whether his petition was filed within the #%*day period under +ule #C$*!,
/#0'c).
The contention has no merit. The 8uestion of whether a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading or not under +ule #C$*!, /#0'c) has
been settled in Halimao v. Villanueva,
A-B
in which this ourt held>
Although +ule #C$*!, /#0'c) ma3es no mention of a motion for
reconsideration, nothing in its te<t or in its history suggests that such motion
is prohibited. =t may therefore be filed within #% days from notice to a
party. =ndeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged before resort
is made to this ourt as a matter of e<haustion of administrative remedies,
to afford the agency rendering the Iudgment an opportunity to correct any
error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of the evidence.
A1B
(n the 8uestion whether petitioners present petition was filed within
the #%*day period provided under +ule #C$*!, /#0'c), although the records
show that it was filed on Dune ., #$$$, respondent has not shown when
petitioner received a copy of the resolution of the =!P !oard of Eovernors
denying his motion for reconsideration. =t would appear, however, that the
petition was filed on time because a copy of the resolution personally
served on the (ffice of the !ar onfidant of this ourt was received by it
on May #", #$$$. Since copies of =!P resolutions are sent to the parties by
mail, it is possible that the copy sent to petitioner was received by him later
than May #", #$$$. 7ence, it may be assumed that his present petition was
filed within #% days from his receipt of the =!P resolution. =n any event, the
burden was on respondent, as the moving party, to show that the petition in
this case was filed beyond the #%*day period for filing it.
&ven assuming that petitioner received the =!P resolution in 8uestion
on May #", #$$$, i.e., on the same date a copy of the same was received by
the (ffice of the !ar onfidant, the delay would only be two days.
A"B
The
delay may be overloo3ed, considering the merit of this case. @isbarment
proceedings are underta3en solely for public welfare. The sole 8uestion for
determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be allowed the
privileges as such or not. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the ourt to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a
party, and generally has no interest in the outcome e<cept as all good
citiGens may have in the proper administration of Iustice.
A$B
For this reason,
laws dealing with double Ieopardy
A#9B
or prescription
A##B
or with procedure
li3e verification of pleadings
A#0B
and preIudicial 8uestions
A#CB
have no
application to disbarment proceedings.
&ven in ordinary civil actions, the period for perfecting appeals is
rela<ed in the interest of Iustice and e8uity where the appealed case is
clearly meritorious. Thus, we have given due course to appeals even
though filed si<,
A#.B
four,
A#%B
and three
A#-B
days late. =n this case, the petition is
clearly meritorious.
-econ!. The =!P recommends the dismissal of petitioners complaint
on the basis of the following> '#) respondents had no involvement in the
tabulation of the election returns, because when the Statements of 2otes
'So2s) were given to them, such had already been accomplished and only
needed their respective signaturesH '0) the canvassing was done in the
presence of watchers, representatives of the political parties, the media, and
the general public so that respondents would not have ris3ed the
commission of any irregularityH and 'C) the acts dealt with in +.A. ,o.
--.-, /01'b) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, and petitioner failed to
establish criminal intent on the part of respondents.
A#1B
The recommendation is unacceptable. =n disciplinary proceedings
against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is
re8uired to establish liability.
A#"B
As long as the evidence presented by
complainant or that ta3en Iudicial notice of by the ourt
A#$B
is more
convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto,
A09B
the imposition of disciplinary sanction is Iustified.
=n this case, respondents do not dispute the fact that massive
irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig ity election returns. The
only e<planation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same
could be due to honest mista3e, human error, and4or fatigue on the part of
the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the So2s.
This is the same allegation made in Pimentel v. ommission on
&lections.
A0#B
=n reIecting this allegation and ordering respondents prosecuted
for violation of +.A. ,o. --.-, /01'b), this ourt said>
There is a limit, 5e believe, to what can be construed as an honest
mista3e or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The
sheer magnitude of the error, not only in the total number of votes garnered
by the aforementioned candidates as reflected in the o and the So2s,
which did not tally with that reflected in the election returns, but also in the
total number of votes credited for senatorial candidate &nrile which
e<ceeded the total number of voters who actually voted in those precincts
during the May ", #$$% elections, renders the defense of honest mista3e or
oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable.
A00B
=ndeed, what is involved here is not Iust a case of mathematical error
in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and
the subse8uent entry of the erroneous figures in one or two So2s
A0CB
but a
systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the
e<pense of petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election
returns. A cursory loo3 at the evidence submitted by petitioner reveals that,
in at least 0. So2s involving #9# precincts, the votes for candidate &nrile
e<ceeded the number of voters who actually voted in the said precincts and,
in #" So2s, returns from 00 precincts were tabulated twice. =n addition, as
the ourt noted in Pimentel, the total number of votes credited to each of
the seven senatorial candidates in 8uestion, as reflected in the o,
mar3edly differ from those indicated in the So2s.
A0.B
@espite the fact that
these discrepancies, especially the double recording of the returns from 00
precincts and the variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the So2s
and o, were apparent on the face of these documents and that the
variation involves substantial number of votes, respondents nevertheless
certified the So2s as true and correct. Their acts constitute misconduct.
+espondent Llorentes contention that he merely certified the
genuineness and due e<ecution of the So2s but not their correctness is
belied by the certification which reads>
5& 7&+&!6 &+T=F6 that the foregoing Statement of 2otes by . . .
ApBrecinct is true and correct. =, 5=T,&SS 57&+&(F, we sign
these presents at the ity4Municipality of JJJJJJJJJJJ Province of
JJJJJJJJJJJJ this JJJJJJJ day of May, #$$%. '&mphasis added)
,or does the fact that the canvassing was open to the public and
observed by numerous individuals preclude the commission of acts for
which respondents are liable. The fact is that only they had access to the
So2s and o and thus had the opportunity to compare them and detect the
discrepancies therein.
,ow, a lawyer who holds a government position may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as a government official.
A0%B
7owever, if the misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the ode of Professional +esponsibility or the
lawyers oath or is of such character as to affect his 8ualification as a
lawyer or shows moral delin8uency on his part, such individual may be
disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
A0-B
7ere, by certifying as true and correct the So2s in 8uestion,
respondents committed a breach of +ule #.9# of the ode which stipulates
that a lawyer shall not engage in :unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.; !y e<press provision of anon -, this is made applicable to
lawyers in the government service. =n addition, they li3ewise violated their
oath of office as lawyers to :do no falsehood.;
,owhere is the need for lawyers to observe honesty both in their
private and in their public dealings better e<pressed in Sabayle v.
Tandayag
A01B
in which this ourt said>
There is a strong public interest involved in re8uiring lawyers . . . to
behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. =t is
important that the common caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel
compelled to spea3 the truth and to act honestly, should not become a
common reality. . . .
A0"B
=t may be added that, as lawyers in the government service, respondents
were under greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession
because a public office is a public trust.
)1ir!. +espondents participation in the irregularities herein reflects
on the legal profession, in general, and on lawyers in government, in
particular. Such conduct in the performance of their official duties,
involving no less than the ascertainment of the popular will as e<pressed
through the ballot, would have merited for them suspension were it not for
the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and, in the case of
Salayon, after a long public service.
A0$B
?nder the circumstances, a penalty
of fine in the amount of P#9,999.99 for each of the respondents should be
sufficient.
2(+(F&+(, the ourt finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente and
Ligaya P. Salayon E?=LT6 of misconduct and imposes on each of them a
F=,& in the amount of P#9,999.99 with a 5A+,=,E that commission of
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
-& &+/(+(/.
Bellosillo, (hairman!, "uisumbing, Buena, and #e $eon, %r.,
%%., concur.
A#B
!atas Pambansa !lg. ""#, /00#'b). The third member of the !oard,
eferino Adamos, now deceased, was the ler3 of ourt of the Pasig ity
Metropolitan Trial ourt.
A0B
S&. 01. &lection 'ffenses. K =n addition to the prohibited acts and
election offenses enumerated in Section 0-# and 0-0 of !atas Pambansa
!lg. ""#, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense.
. . . .
'b) Any member of the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers
who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in
any election . . . .
ACB
(ollo, p. ##-.
A.B
Pimentel, Dr. v. (M&L&, E.+. ,o. #CC%9$, Feb. $, 0999.
A%B
S&. #0. (evie) and decision by the Board of *overnors. K . . . .
'c) =f the respondent is e<onerated by the !oard or the disciplinary sanction
imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment 'such as admonition,
reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision e<onerating respondent or
imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon
petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme
ourt within fifteen '#%) days from notice of the !oards resolution, the
Supreme ourt orders otherwise.
A-B
0%C S+A # '#$$-).
A1B
+d., at -.
A"B
ounted from May #", #$$$, the #%th day falls on Dune 0, #$$$.
A$B
TaIan v. usi, Dr., %1 S+A #%. '#$1.)H =n re Almacen, C# S+A %-0
'#$19)H +ayos*(mbac v. +ayos, 0"% S+A $C '#$$").
A#9B
See Pangan v. +amos, #91 S+A # '#$"#)H =n re @el +osario, %0 Phil.
C$$ '#$0").
A##B
alo v. @egamo, 09 S+A ..1 '#$-1).
A#0B
=n re> 2ictorio @. Lanuevo, -- S+A 0.% '#$1%).
A#CB
Agripino !rillantes, 1- S+A # '#$11).
A#.B
+epublic v. ourt of Appeals, "C S+A .%C '#$1").
A#%B
+amos v. !agasao, $- S+A C$% '#$"9).
A#-B
Philippine ,ational !an3 v. ourt of Appeals, 0.- S+A C9. '#$$%).
A#1B
=!P +eport, p. %H (ollo, p. #0#.
A#"B
=n re Tion3o, .C Phil. #$# '#$00)H +e> Agripino A. !rillantes, 1- S+A
# '#$11).
A#$B
See Prudential !an3 v. astro, #%% S+A -9. '#$"1)H +ichards v. Asoy,
#%0 S+A .% '#$"1).
A09B
+epublic v. ourt of Appeals, #-9 S+A #-# '#$$#).
A0#B
E.+. ,o. #CC%9$, Feb. $, 0999.
A00B
+d., at #9.
A0CB
&.g., Tatlonghari v. ommission on &lections, #$$ S+A ".$ '#$$#)H
Angelia v. Tan, E.+. ,o. #C%.-", May C#, 0999.
A0.B
Tabulated as follows 'Pimentel v. ommission on &lections, E.+.
,o. #CC%9$, Feb. $, 0999)>
A,@=@AT& &+T=F=AT& (F
A,2ASS
STAT&M&,T (F
2(T&S
!iaGon "C,1C# "1,0#.
oseteng %.,#0- -1,%1C
&nrile $#,1$" $9,#-#
Fernan -$,1#0 10,9C#
7onasan -0,#%$ -0,911
Mitra %-,9$1 %-,1C1
Pimentel -",9.9 -1,$C-

A0%B
EonGales*Austria v. Abaya, #1- S+A -C. '#$"$).
A0-B
ollantes v. +enomeron, 099 S+A %". '#$$#)H EonGales*Austria v.
Abaya, #1- S+A -C. '#$"$)H See +uben Agpalo, Legal &thics .0% '.th
ed., #$"$).
A01B
#%" S+A .$1 '#$"")
A0"B
+d., at %9-.
A0$B
She first served in the lower courts before wor3ing in the Supreme ourt
from #$"#*#$$9 'omment, p. %H (ollo, p. .").