G.R. No. MTJ-95-1063, August 09, 1996
Alfonso C. Choa, Complainant, vs. Judge Roberto S. Chiongson, Respondent.

FACTS

The Supreme Court initially dismissed an administrative complaint filed by Alfonso Choa against Judge Roberto Chiongson for want of merit. In its dismissal resolution, the Court directed Atty. Raymundo Quiroz, counsel for the complainant, to show cause why he should not be disciplined for filing a groundless suit, thereby failing in his duties as a lawyer under his oath, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Quiroz sought an extension to file his compliance and subsequently submitted a pleading titled “Compliance/Motion for Reconsideration.”
The Court granted only an extension to file his compliance with the show-cause order, explicitly warning against further extensions. The filed pleading, however, was deemed primarily a motion for reconsideration of the original dismissal. Since the granted extension covered only the compliance and not a motion for reconsideration, and considering the Court’s policy against granting extensions to file such motions after a judgment is rendered, the motion for reconsideration was considered filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Raymundo Quiroz should be held administratively liable for his actions in relation to the filing and prosecution of the groundless administrative complaint against Judge Chiongson.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Quiroz is administratively liable. The Court found his explanations for filing the complaint unsatisfactory and lacking in good faith. He claimed an honest belief in his client’s cause and asserted he was merely demonstrating the judge’s alleged bias due to a neighbor relationship, not attacking the merits of a separate perjury conviction against his client. The Court rejected this, noting that the complaint’s allegations directly assailed the legal basis of the judge’s perjury judgment, arguing the information was defective, evidence was inadmissible, and the penalty was incorrect.
The Court emphasized that since the perjury conviction was already on appeal, all such substantive arguments properly belonged before the appellate court, not in an administrative case. By pursuing this administrative complaint, Atty. Quiroz engaged in an improper attempt to harass the judge and potentially influence the pending appeal, undermining judicial integrity. His actions violated his duties as an officer of the court to uphold the law, maintain respect for legal processes, and refrain from promoting groundless suits. Consequently, the Court imposed upon Atty. Raymundo Quiroz a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning for future conduct.