A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017
Romulo De Mesa Festin, Complainant vs. Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Romulo Festin was the elected Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. His opponent, Jose Villarosa, filed an election protest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided in Villarosa’s favor and granted his motion for execution pending appeal, ordering the issuance of a writ after a 20-day period unless a restraining order was issued. Festin sought relief from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the RTC judge to cease enforcing the execution order. The RTC consequently issued a follow-up order directing its Clerk of Court not to issue the writ.
Despite the TRO and the RTC’s subsequent order, respondent Atty. Rolando Zubiri, as counsel for Villarosa, filed five ex parte manifestations with the Clerk of Court, insisting on the writ’s issuance. He argued the TRO was issued after his computed 20-day period had lapsed and was binding only on the judge, not the Clerk. These manifestations were not served on Festin. Relying on these, the Clerk issued the writ. Festin discovered the acts only upon the sheriff’s attempt to serve it, prompting this disbarment complaint for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rolando Zubiri is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent’s actions constituted deceit and an abuse of court processes, violating his duty as a lawyer to uphold the law and avoid misconduct. His filing of multiple ex parte “manifestations” was a deliberate subterfuge to circumvent procedural rules. These pleadings, which contained arguments and a prayer for the writ’s issuance, were functionally motions. By labeling them as manifestations, respondent evaded the mandatory requirements for motions: a notice of hearing and service to the adverse party. This deprived complainant of due process and the opportunity to oppose.
Respondent’s legal arguments to justify his actions were meritless. A TRO issued to a court enjoins all its officers and employees, including the Clerk of Court, from proceeding with the restrained act. His insistence that the Clerk was not bound was a misrepresentation intended to mislead a ministerial officer into defying a lawful order. While lawyers must represent clients with zeal, this duty is limited by unwavering compliance with the law and court directives. Respondent’s conduct demonstrated bad faith and undermined the integrity of the judicial process. The Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months.