G.R. No. A.C. No. 12486, October 15, 2019
Antonio X. Genato, Complainant, vs. Atty. Eligio P. Mallari, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Antonio X. Genato sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari for deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court, jurisprudence, and violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complaint alleged that respondent induced complainant to invest ₱18 Million in a 133-hectare property in San Fernando, Pampanga, which respondent falsely claimed to own through a judgment award. Complainant later discovered the property belonged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and was designated for land reform beneficiaries. A criminal complaint for estafa filed by complainant was dismissed but remained under review by the Department of Justice.
The complaint also cited other instances of respondent’s misconduct:
1. In Eligio P. Mallari v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Provincial Sheriff, respondent employed dilatory tactics to evade execution of a final and executory decision involving a debt unpaid for 24 years, leading the Supreme Court to order an investigation by the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD).
2. On October 29, 2012, respondent published advertisements in major newspapers challenging Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. to a “public and televised debate” regarding a ruling in PNB v. Eligio P. Mallari, et al.
3. In Eligio P. Mallari v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (G.R. No. 157660), respondent used delaying tactics to obstruct a writ of possession, prompting a warning from the Court.
4. Respondent filed baseless harassment cases against PNB lawyers and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, which were dismissed, yet he continued filing frivolous petitions.
Respondent denied the charges, claiming he was merely defending his proprietary rights and that the challenge to Justice Bruselas, Jr. was justified as a response to a “void” resolution. He contended the disbarment complaint was filed to harass him and his wife.
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Committee on Integrity and Bar Discipline found respondent violated the CPR and Lawyer’s Oath by: (a) disrespecting the court through his public challenge to a justice; (b) deliberately disregarding a writ of possession; and (c) employing dilatory tactics to stall execution of a final judgment. The Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to two successive six-month suspensions.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari should be disbarred for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, based on his pattern of misconduct, including abuse of court processes, disrespect toward judicial officers, and filing of frivolous cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the factual findings and legal conclusions of the IBP Board of Governors but imposed a more severe penalty. The Court found respondent GUILTY of violating Rule 10.03, Canon 10 (prohibiting misuse of procedural rules to defeat justice); Rule 11.05, Canon 11 (requiring submission of grievances against judges to proper authorities only); and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 (prohibiting undignified conduct toward courts) of the CPR, as well as the Lawyer’s Oath.
The Court emphasized that lawyers must uphold the law, respect legal processes, and maintain candor and fairness toward courts. Respondent’s actions—including his public challenge to a justice, deliberate obstruction of writs of possession, and repeated use of dilatory and vexatious tactics—demonstrated a pattern of abuse of court processes and disrespect for judicial authority. Such misconduct showed a lack of moral character, honesty, and probity, rendering him unfit to remain a member of the bar.
Considering the totality of circumstances and the aggravating factor of respondent’s repeated offenses, the Court ordered respondent’s DISBARMENT. His name was ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.