G.R. No. A.C. No. 12622 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4651), February 10, 2020
Wilma L. Zamora, Complainant, vs. Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Wilma L. Zamora, representing PJH Lending Corporation, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint stemmed from a motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Mahinay on behalf of his clients in a forcible entry case. In the motion, Atty. Mahinay argued that the trial court’s order for execution, if not reconsidered, would violate Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He enumerated facts he believed the court was duty-bound to consider and stated, “Defendants are furnishing a copy of this motion to the Court Administrator, as they reserve to upgrade their above perceived violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to a formal administrative complaint.” Zamora alleged this constituted a threat to the judge to gain favorable action, violating Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). She further claimed this was part of a pattern, citing another case where Atty. Mahinay allegedly threatened a judge. The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal, finding the remarks were within Atty. Mahinay’s duty to be forthright and that no proof of intent to threaten was presented. The IBP Board of Governors first adopted this dismissal, then upon reconsideration suspended Atty. Mahinay for six months, finding he made brazen threats. However, upon Atty. Mahinay’s motion for reconsideration, the Board reinstated the dismissal, ruling Zamora did not present substantial evidence of a violation.

ISSUE

Whether the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Atty. Mahinay for alleged violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the CPR, based on the language used in his motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit. The Court held that the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. A sober reading of the motion for reconsideration did not reveal language that was offensive, abusive, malicious, or intemperate. The statement that the court “cannot be partial” was not a label or insinuation of partiality but an argument based on law and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The act of furnishing a copy to the Court Administrator and reserving the right to file an administrative complaint was a statement of a future contingent action, not a threat. The Court found Atty. Mahinay was circumspect in his language and, at most, overzealous in defending his client’s cause, which is not necessarily bad as long as professional limits are not overstepped. The Court concluded he did not overstep these limits or unfairly criticize the judge.