Abella v. Barrios
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Eduardo A. Abella filed an illegal dismissal case against PT&T. After several rulings by the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals (CA), the CA Decision dated September 18, 2003, became final and executory on July 19, 2004, ordering PT&T to pay complainant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Complainant filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution on October 25, 2004, before the Cebu City RAB, which was assigned to respondent Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. After significant delays in acting on the complainant's motions for execution, complainant personally visited respondent on November 4, 2005. During this visit, respondent allegedly solicited money, asking for ₱30,000.00, and also received ₱1,500.00 in cash. On November 7, 2005, respondent issued a writ of execution for ₱1,470,082.60. PT&T moved to quash this writ, which was initially denied but later recalled by respondent on December 9, 2005, through an order in open court. A new writ of execution was issued, reducing the monetary awards to ₱114,585.00. Procedural History: The NLRC, in a Resolution dated March 14, 2006, annulled respondent's December 9, 2005 Order, stating that respondent had no authority to modify the final and executory CA Decision. Complainant also filed a criminal case before the Office of the Ombudsman and the instant disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Petition: The disbarment complaint averred that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of gross immorality and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and ordered respondent's disbarment. The Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent's actions constituted gross misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. is found GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and gross misconduct in violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, as respondent had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, the Court imposed a FINE of ₱40,000.00 instead of disbarment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross immorality: The Court found that the respondent's actions demonstrated gross immorality. The records showed that respondent delayed acting on the complainant's motions for execution for over a year, only to expedite the issuance of a writ of execution three days after the complainant personally visited him. This sudden dispatch cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of his denial of extorting money. Furthermore, the respondent's complete turnaround on the quashal of the writ of execution, initially denying PT&T's motion and then recalling the writ based on a supplemental motion that was a mere rehash of the first, further bolstered the incredulity of his claims. On the issue of gross misconduct: The respondent attempted to justify his actions by claiming he was merely implementing the CA Decision which did not provide for backwages, but a plain reading of the CA Decision contradicted this assertion. The CA had affirmed with modification the NLRC's rulings which explicitly awarded backwages and other monetary benefits, with the only modification being the order of reinstatement to separation pay. The respondent's attempt to distort the CA's findings by quoting portions of its decision to propound that the award of separation pay denied entitlement to backwages was a misrepresentation. The Court emphasized that backwages are separate and distinct from separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and are awarded conjunctively to an illegally dismissed employee. Given the unanimous pronouncements of illegal dismissal by the LA, NLRC, and CA, it was unbelievable that respondent, as a labor arbiter, would overlook the entitlement to backwages. Therefore, the Court gave credence to the pronouncement of gross misconduct.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer in government service who engages in gross immoral conduct and gross misconduct, such as soliciting money in exchange for a favorable resolution or issuing a wrong decision to benefit a party, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be disbarred or fined.