SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9803. January 5, 2022.]
DANDY V. QUIJANO, complainant, vs.ATTY. QUINTIN B. CUETO III, ATTY. MERCEDES R. POSADA-LACAP, ATTY. DOLORES M. PERALTA-BELEY, AND ATTY. LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9803 (Dandy V. Quijano v. Atty. Quintin B. Cueto III, Atty. Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, Atty. Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, and Atty. Leonardo L. Leonida). — The genesis of the instant case is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated February 18, 2013 filed by complainant Dandy V. Quijano (complainant) against Labor Arbiter (LA) Quintin B. Cueto III (LA Cueto) and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Commissioners Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, and Leonardo L. Leonida (collectively, the respondents) for violations of Canon I and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sometime in 1991, complainant sued Mercury Drug Corporation (MDC) before the NLRC for, among others, illegal dismissal, which case was docketed as NLRC Case No. 11-06752-91 (the 1st Labor Complaint). The 1st Labor Complaint eventually made its way to this Court in G.R. No. 126561, 2 wherein complainant prevailed against MDC. 3
The Decision 4 of this Court in the 1st Labor Complaint eventually became final and executory. However, a controversy arose in the execution thereof. This led to two separate proceedings: (1) related to the execution of the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 126561 (which was docketed as G.R. No. 162190), and (2) an administrative complaint against the officers of the NLRC who prevented the execution of this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 126561. 5 In both cases, the complainant prevailed. Thus, this Court, in G.R. No. 162190, 6 directed, for the second time, the execution of the Decision in G.R. No. 126561; and in the administrative complaint, this Court levied the penalty of suspension against the errant officers of the NLRC. 7
In pursuit of the execution of this Court's decisions in both G.R. Nos. 126561 and 162190, the complainant and the MDC entered into a settlement conference (held on November 19 and 23, 2007) wherein the following documents appear to have been executed, albeit complainant denies such fact:
1. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated November 19, 2007 wherein complainant, for and in exchange of the settlement amount of P6,000,000.00 waived his right to be reinstated;
1.1 Note that the settlement amount of P6,000,000.00 also included the judgment award in the 1st Labor Complaint in the amount of P4,486,751.64.
2. Letter of resignation dated November 19, 2007 by complainant; and
3. Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim (RWQ) dated November 19, 2007 signed by complainant. 8
After the execution of the above-mentioned documents, complainant filed before the NLRC, in relation to the 1st Labor Complaint, an Admission of Satisfaction of Judgment dated November 23, 2007. 9 This led the NLRC, through Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera (LA De Vera) and this Court to declare the 1st Labor Complaint as "Closed and Terminated." 10
On November 20, 2010, complainant once again came before the NLRC claiming that he was once more unlawfully dismissed by MDC. The complaint was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00077-11 (2nd Labor Complaint) and was raffled to LA Cueto. After mandatory conference and submission of pleadings by complainant and MDC, 11 LA Cueto rendered a Decision 12 in NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00077-11 dated November 14, 2011: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Respondents are directed to issue a Certificate of Employment to complainant pursuant to the MOA dated November 19, 2007.
SO ORDERED.13
The position taken by the complainant was that the 2nd Labor Complaint formed part of the execution of the 1st Labor Complaint. However, LA Cueto did not agree. On this note, LA Cueto's finding was grounded on the execution of the MOA, letter of resignation, and the RWQ, as well as complainant's admissions during hearing that the judgment award in the 1st Labor Complaint has been fully settled and that the NLRC and this Court have declared that the 1st Labor Complaint is "Closed and Terminated." 14 Aggrieved, complainant elevated the matter before the NLRC which eventually ruled against him. 15
Complainant, however, laments that the NLRC Commissioners, in resolving his appeal, failed to act with dispatch. He claims that the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals direct that the NLRC Commissioners should have resolved the appeal within 20 days but it took them more than 180 days to do so. Moreover, prior to the resolution of his appeal, complainant had evidently filed a Verified Motion to Remand the Case to the Labor Arbiter for Full Execution and Implementation of the Final and Executory Judgment of the Supreme Court (Verified Motion) dated June 26, 2012, which was filed on June 28, 2012. According to complainant the Verified Motion was received by the NLRC Commissioners on June 29, 2012. However, allegedly this date was erased and replaced by one Raffy "dhap" Posada to reflect that the Verified Motion was received on July 2, 2012. 16 To complainant's mind, this amounted to alteration and falsification of document, which the NLRC Commissioners were complicit.
In view of the foregoing perceived irregularities by the complainant, he filed the instant complaint. After receiving the answers of the respondents, 17 this Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation or decision. 18 After due investigation, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline 19 (IBP-CBD) absolved herein respondents from liability; thus:
It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 20
In ruling in favor of the respondents, the IBP-CBD, the LA, and the NLRC Commissioners did not violate the due process rights of complainant insofar as their Decisions did not constitute non-compliance in the final and executory Decision of this Court in the 1st Labor Case. The IBP-CBD stressed that the 1st Labor Case is already closed and terminated. 21 There was, therefore, nothing left to execute. 22 Further, the IBP-CBD gave no merit to the claim of falsification of complainant, characterizing it as "surely too much, and clearly baseless." 23 The recommendation of the IBP-CBD was adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 24
Aggrieved, complainant moved for reconsideration, 25 but was nevertheless denied in a Resolution 26 dated May 27, 2017 by the IBP Board of Governors.
RULING
At the very outset, this Court stresses that the present administrative proceeding is not the appropriate occasion within which to question the correctness of the LA's Decision in the 2nd Labor Complaint, 27 which was affirmed in toto by the NLRC. 28 Doubtlessly, the complainant is well aware of this fact as he himself has elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). Unfortunately, the CA did not rule in favor of the complainant.
That being said, the sole issue to be resolved by this Court is whether herein respondents violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in the manner by which they handled the proceedings in the 2nd Labor Complaint. Distilling the pleadings submitted by complainant, this Court finds that herein complainant relies on three key allegations to support his complaint: first, that both the LA and the NLRC Commissioners have supposedly violated complainant's right to due process in having purportedly refused to execute the final and executory decisions of this Court in G.R. Nos. 126561 and 162190; 29second, that the NLRC Commissioners failed to resolve complainant's appeal within the reglementary 20-day period as commanded by the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals; 30 and third, that the NLRC Commissioners were supposedly complicit in altering the date of receipt of complainant's Verified Motion from June 29, 2012 to July 2, 2012. DETACa
We find the administrative complaint bereft of merit.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins all lawyers to "uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes"; while Rule 1.01 proscribes lawyers from "engag[ing] in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Complainant alleges that these rules of conduct for attorneys have been violated in the unlawful handling and disposition of the 2nd Labor Complaint by both the LA and the NLRC Commissioners. However, a judicious review of the records would show that both the LA and the NLRC Commissioners acted in a fair manner which does not, in any way, place their moral character into serious doubt. 31
Complainant's first ground for imputing administrative liability on the LA and the NLRC Commissioners is intimately related to their disposition of the 2nd Labor Complaint. However, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his or her official duties render him or her liable. Otherwise, every judicial or quasi-judicial officer, including herein LA and NLRC Commissioners, would be overburdened by the possibility of being administratively sanctioned for every honest mistake or error such officers may make in the disposition of cases. 32 Indeed, settled is the rule that "[a]n administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge [or quasi-judicial officer] deemed aberrant or irregular where a 'judicial remedy exists and is available. It must be underscored that the acts of a judge [or quasi-judicial officer] in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.' He cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, 'no matter how erroneous,' provided he acts in good faith." 33
In this case, it is patent that the respondents acted in their quasi-judicial capacity. In their appreciation of the 2nd Labor Complaint, both respondents LA Cueto and the NLRC Commissioners determined that it was not a continuation of the 1st Labor Complaint, and exhaustively discussed their good faith basis for ruling in such manner. 34 As pointed out by the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos of the IBP, LA Cueto's Decision, affirmed on appeal by the NLRC Commissioners, was supported by substantial evidence, i.e., "complainant's admission that his previous services were already paid, the complainant's execution of an Admission of Satisfaction of Judgment, declaration by Labor Arbiter De Vera, and later by the Supreme Court, that the case is already CLOSED and TERMINATED, presentation of the Memorandum of Agreement dated November 19, 2007, the Resignation Letter dated November 19, 2007, the Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim dated November 20, 2007, etc." 35 While the findings of the respondents were not agreeable to complainant, these errors cannot be the proper subject of an administrative proceeding, but is only correctible through judicial remedies.
Likewise, the second ground relied upon by the complainant must equally fail. The second ground alleges that the NLRC Commissioners should have resolved the appeal within 20 calendar days as directed by Section 11 of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under R.A. No. 6715, Amending the Labor Code (NLRC Interim Rules). However, it must be noted that at the time the 2nd Labor Complaint was filed, and at the time it was elevated on appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC Interim Rules was no longer in effect. Neither the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which was in effect at the time of filing of the 2nd Labor Complaint, and the 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which was in effect when the Decision of the LA was elevated to the NLRC, provided a period within which the NLRC must resolve an appeal elevated to it.
This does not mean, however, that the NLRC can take as much time as it wishes to resolve an appeal before it. They must still do so within a reasonable time. In any event, this Court does not find that the NLRC Commissioners acted with undue delay in resolving the appeal by the complainant. This Court finds credible that the explanation given by the NLRC Commissioners that they were burdened with numerous cases, i.e., 11,372 in 2011 and 11,085 in 2012, excluding certified cases. 36
It bears reminding that while this Court is keenly aware of the policy that labor cases must, as far as practicable, be resolved with dispatch, 37 it must nevertheless be emphasized that "speed alone is not the chief objective of a trial. It is the careful and deliberate consideration for the administration of justice, a genuine respect for the rights of all parties and the requirements of procedural due process, and an adherence to this Court's standing admonition that the disposition of cases should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts and of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. These are more important than a race to end the trial." 38
Equally unmeritorious is the third ground relied upon by complainant to hold the NLRC Commissioners administratively liable. Complainant accuses the NLRC Commissioners of altering the date within which they received a copy of the Verified Motion. He insists that the NLRC Commissioners received them on June 29, 2012 but was changed to July 2, 2012. 39 The allegation deserves nothing more than a short shrift.
For one, this Court does not see how the alteration of the date, if true, prejudiced complainant's rights. For another, complainant does not positively and convincingly show how such an act, assuming its true, goes into their fitness for their offices and their worthiness of the privileges which their licenses and the law confer upon them, 40 much less show that their behavior "tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor[.]" 41 In any case, the NLRC Commissioners amply explained that the change in the date was due to an error by one Mr. Raffy Posadas. 42
In sum, none of the facts and circumstances relied upon by complainant show sufficient reason for this Court to hold the respondents administratively liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint dated February 18, 2013 filed by Dandy V. Quijano against Attys. Quintin B. Cueto III, Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, and Leonardo L. Leonida is DISMISSED for lack of merit. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-20.
2. Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corporation, 354 Phil. 112 (1998).
3. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 1.
4. Supra note 2.
5. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 2-4.
6. Id. at 23-24; Mercury Drug Corporation v. Quijano, G.R. No. 162190, September 12, 2007.
7. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 633.
8. Id. at 634.
9. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 204.
10. Id. at 205-206.
11. Id. at 40-41.
12. Id. at 48-72.
13. Id. at 72.
14. Id. at 23-24.
15. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 636.
16. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 10-11.
17. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 630.
18. Id. at 620.
19. Id. at 640-643. The Report and Recommendation by the IBP-CBD was made under the hand of Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.
20. Id. at 643.
21. Id. at 642.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 643.
24. Id. at 628.
25. Id. at 644-658.
26. Id. at 712-713.
27. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 40-41.
28. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 636.
29. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 8-9.
30. Id. at 10-11.
31. Verano v. Diores, Jr., 820 Phil. 360, 367 (2017).
32. OCA v. Judge Ante, Jr., 840 Phil. 301 (2018).
33. Biado v. Hon. Brawner-Cualing, 805 Phil. 694, 702 (2017). See Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., 682 Phil. 1, 11 (2012) (Labor Arbiters and Commissioners of the NLRC are quasi-judicial officers who perform functions akin to those of judges.)
34. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 62-72.
35. Rollo, Vol. II, p. 642.
36. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 124.
37. Habana v. National Labor Relations Commission, 372 Phil. 873, 881 (1999).
38. Simon v. Canlas, 521 Phil. 558, 573 (2006).
39. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 12-13.
40. Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350, 351 (1933).
41. Abella v. Barrios, Jr., 711 Phil. 363 (2013).
42. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 125-129.