ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M.

SANTOS, Respondent
A.C. No. 12005, July 23, 2018

In resolving the issue, it is important to answer the question if IBP is strictly a public office or a private
institution. Based on the IBP’s peculiar manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court to
conclude that the IBP is a public institution. Pursuant to the by-laws of the IBP, only private
practitioners are allowed to occupy any position in its organization.
The complainant violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The filing of baseless
and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow lawyers is antithetical to conducting
oneself with courtesy, fairness, and candor.

FACTS:

The controversy stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Lucille G. Sillo against
complainant before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case was assigned to Atty. Jose
Alfonso M. Santos (Respondent), who was the commissioner of the IBP at that time. The respondent
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that complainant be reprimanded for the
impropriety of talking to Sillo, without her counsel, prior to the calling of their case for mediation
conference, and for the abusive, offensive, or improper language in the pleadings she filed in the said
case. The report was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Achernar Tabuzo
(Complainant) filed this administrative complaint against the respondent alleging : (1) that he violated
the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; (2) that
respondent also violated Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions of the Commission on Bar Discipline; (3) that respondent is guilty of nonfeasance in
deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action for serious violations of duties owed to the Court and
the Legal Profession committed by a lawyer, despite repeated notice, and contrary to the mandate of his
office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (4) gross ignorance of the law on the part of the
respondent. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack
of merit which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable in the same manner as
judges and other government officials (NO)
(2) Whether or not complainant violated any of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility (YES)

RULING:

(1) In resolving the issue, it is important to answer the question if IBP is strictly a public office or
a private institution. To answer this question, it is significant to discuss the nature and background of
the IBP. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions gave the Court and the Legislature the concurrent
power to regulate the practice of law. However, in Section 1 of RA 6397, the Congress
acknowledged the Court’s rightful and primary prerogative to adopt measures to raise the standard
of the legal profession. Following this, the Court had ordained the Integration of the Philippine Bar.
The President, exercising its legislative power, issued PD No. 181 which gave IBP corporate attributes
only subject to the Court’s supervision. It was only in the 1987 Constitution which acknowledged the
“integrated bar” as one of the subjects of the Supreme Court’s power to promulgate rules relative to the
practice of law that cemented the IBP’s existence as a juridical person. Based on the IBP’s peculiar
manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court to conclude that the IBP is a public
institution. Pursuant to the by-laws of the IBP, only private practitioners are allowed to occupy any
position in its organization. It follows that IBP Commissioners, being officers of the IBP, are private
practitioners performing public functions delegated to them by this Court and in other words, they are
not public officers thus, it follows that they cannot be held liable for violating the Constitution or Code of
Judicial Conduct since they are not members of the judiciary nor they are officers of a quasi-judicial
officers. In addition, they cannot be held administratively liable for malfeasance, nonfeasance, and
misfeasance since they are not employed with the government. Nonetheless, the Commissioner and
other IBP Officers may be held administratively liable for violation of the rules promulgated by the court.
It can be concluded that IBP officers may be held administratively liable only in relation to their functions
as IBP officers but not as government officials.
(2) The complainant violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that: CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
In this case, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow
lawyers are antithetical to conducting oneself with courtesy, fairness, and candor.