A.C. No. 7430; February 15, 2012
Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion, Complainants, vs. Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, members of the Board of Trustees of the International School, Manila, were impleaded as respondents in an illegal dismissal case filed by David Edward Toze before the sala of respondent Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. Toze filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction. Complainants’ counsel entered an appearance and asked for additional time to file a comment. Without resolving the pending incidents or conducting a full hearing, respondent issued an Order dated September 14, 2006, directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante, which effectively resulted in Toze’s immediate reinstatement. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, which remained unresolved for an inordinate period.
Respondent justified his order as necessary to prevent irreparable damage due to the motion’s urgency and the requested time extension by the opposing counsel. He argued the disbarment complaint was premature and a subterfuge to compel his inhibition from the pending labor case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct and violation of his lawyer’s oath.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation for a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The legal logic is anchored on respondent’s gross misconduct in issuing the status quo ante order. First, a Labor Arbiter lacks the authority to issue a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction; such power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 218 of the Labor Code. By issuing the order, respondent arrogated unto himself a power he did not possess.
Second, his act constituted gross ignorance of the law. The order was issued without a factual basis, as it was grounded merely on speculation of irreparable injury, and without a proper hearing, thereby depriving complainants of due process. The inordinate delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration further demonstrated bad faith, showing an orchestrated effort to perpetuate the effects of the illegal order until the expiration of the employee’s contract. Such actions violate the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, which demand competence, diligence, and respect for legal processes. The suspension serves as a penalty for this gross misconduct and a deterrent against similar future acts.