ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Haidee Uy

DRAFT NO.: 1

ANTONIO X. GENATO v. ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI,

A.C. NO. 12486, 15 October 2019, EN BANC (PER CURIAM)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Being a lawyer is a special privilege subject to the inherent regulatory power of
the court and bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically
and morally. As such, lawyers must comply with the rigid standards which include
mental fitness, maintenance of highest level of morality, and full compliance with the
rules of the legal profession.

FACTS

Seeking to disbar respondent Atty. Eligio Mallari (Mallari) on the grounds of

deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, and violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility in his conduct and dealings, the
complainant Antonio X. Genato (Genato) asserts that Mallari and his wife claimed to be
the owner of a property located in San Fernando, Pampanga which he allegedly
acquired by virtue of a judgment award in a previous case whereby Mallari induced
Genato to invest P18 Million in the property in return for exclusive power to sell a portion
of the land whereby all proceeds of the sale would go to complainant.

Genato then discovered that the property actually belonged to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) and had been divided for distribution to land reform beneficiaries
thus prompting Genato to file a criminal complaint for estafa against Mallari. However,
the criminal complaint was dismissed and is currently pending review with the
Department of Justice.

Genato further drew attention to cases and instances involving Mallari which
exhibited his predisposition to deceive, his unethical behavior, and his abusive use of
power as a member of the bar:

1. In “Eligio P. Mallari v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)

and the Provincial Sheriff”, Mallari used stalling tactics to delay the
execution of a final and executory decision involving his debt with GSIS
which he had evaded to pay for twenty-four years. In that case, the
Court had to order the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) to
 investigate his actuations yet in spite of ongoing investigation, Mallari
continued to act with impunity in disregarding and flouting the Court's
directives.
2. Mallari paid advertisements published in the Philippine Star and the
Philippine Daily Inquirer which challenged the Court of Appeals'
Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. to a "public and televised
debate" in relation to an issuance in the case of "PNB v. Eligio P.
Mallari, et al”.
3. Mallari used delaying tactics to prevent the enforcement of a writ of
possession issued in the case of "Eligio P. Mallari v. Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank" where the Court had issued warnings to
Mallari about his unethical conduct.
4. Mallari continue filing baseless harassment cases against the lawyers
of PNB and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga which despite being
dismissed, continued purportedly to protect his alleged land ownership
when it was evident that he merely fabricated a facade for his
suspicious title.

Respondent denies the allegations and contends that in all the cases cited, he
had only intended to protect and defend his proprietary rights and that the
advertisement to challenge Court of Appeals' Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,
Jr. to a "public and televised debate" was within his right as an officer of the court as the
CA Associate Justice had issued a void resolution. Furthermore, Mallari asserts that the
present disbarment case is filed only to harass and molest him and his wife.

In reviewing these allegations, the Committee on Integrity and Bar Discipline’s

(CBD’s) Investigating Commissioner found that:

1. Mallari had violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility in "Eligio P. Mallari v. GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff" and was
found guilty of misconduct for employing stalling tactics to delay the execution
of a final and executory decision. The Investigating Commissioner concluded
that Mallari had purposely abused court procedures and processes to
obstruct the fair and quick administration of justice in favor of the mortgagee
and purchaser GSIS, and adjudged that Mallari had violated Rule 10.03,
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by which he was
enjoined as a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedures and x x x not [to]
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
2. In relation to the published advertisement challenging the CA Associate
Justice, Mallari was found to have violated the lawyer’s oath which
emphasized the obligation of members of the bar to "obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities” and showed utter
 disregard to Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which reminds the
respondent to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines as well as to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers.
3. Mallari deliberately disregarded the writ of possession issued in “Eligio P.
Mallari v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank”. The Investigating
Commissioner asserted that upon the failure of a mortgagor to redeem the
property within the prescribed period, a winning bidder becomes the absolute
owner of the property and it thus becomes his right to attain an issuance of a
writ of possession in his favor. The Investigating Commissioner therewith
believed that Mallari had taken advantage of his profession as a lawyer to
unjustifiably stop the issuance and enforcement of the writ of possession.
4. In regard of the charge of Mallari’s filing of whimsical cases against the
lawyers of PNB and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga and complainant
Genato, the Investigating Commissioner found no basis to support a further
investigation of this charge.

In addition, the Investigating Commissioner found that Mallari had violated

several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in his conduct and
dealings including Canon 1 which asserts that lawyers must uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes; Rule 1.02
which provides that lawyers shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system; Canon 10 which asserts that lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts; Rule 11.05 which provides that
lawyers shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice; Canon 11 which asserts that lawyers shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to Judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others; and Rule 11.05 which provides that lawyers shall submit grievances against a
judge to the proper authorities only.

In view of the foregoing and the nature of Mallari’s misconduct, advanced age,
and the excessive and disproportionate passion in defending his own case, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for 6 months. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner and recommended an additional 6 months suspension for
delaying the implementation of the writ of execution as well as his disrespectful acts
towards the trial court.

ISSUE

WON is Atty. Eligio P. Mallari guilty for the charges therewith?

HELD

YES. The Court adopts the factual findings and legal conclusion of the IBP Board of
Governors albeit opting to disbar the respondent instead or merely suspending him. The
Court finds that Mallari had:

1. Repeatedly and purposely abused court processes to fulfill his unlawful intentions
and to harass fellow lawyers and their clients as well as judges and court employees
who do not actuate his bidding;

2. Deliberately ignored final and executory decisions and disregarded the writs of
possession correspondingly issued by the courts;

3. Repeatedly defied court issuances and abused processes which should have
otherwise been availed of only by litigants with genuine causes;

4. By provoking a sitting Justice of the Court of Appeals to a debate, violated his

basic obligation under the Rules of Court to obey the laws of the Philippines, and to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; and

5. Demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the law, the rules, and the courts by his
repeated transgressions, disobedience to court issuances, and arrogant behavior
towards not just a sitting Justice of the Court of Appeals but several of others who have
been the subject of his vituperative style of practicing law.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it evident that Mallari had committed
violations of his basic oath as a lawyer and therefore rendering him unfit to remain in the
legal profession. Furthermore, Millary had not shown any bit of remorse for his conduct
prejudicial to the best interests of the legal profession and is thus rendered incapable of
reform.

As such, the Court finds respondent Atty. Eligio Mallari is found GUILTY of violation
of Rule 10.03, Canon 10, Rule 11.05, Canon 11, and Rule 12.04, Canon 12, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath and is thus disbarred from
the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.