A.C. No. 5649; January 27, 2006
Dandy V. Quijano, Complainant, vs. Geobel A. Bartolabac (Labor Arbiter, NLRC-NCR South), and Alberto R. Quimpo (Commissioner, NLRC-First Division), Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Dandy Quijano secured a final and executory Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 126561 ordering his reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position at Mercury Drug Corporation, with backwages and damages. He filed a motion for execution before respondent Labor Arbiter Geobel A. Bartolabac. Instead of enforcing the reinstatement, Bartolabac issued an order awarding backwages and separation pay, altering the judgment. The Supreme Court subsequently directed Bartolabac to explain his defiance. Bartolabac later issued an alias writ but then issued another order assigning complainant to a different position. Respondent Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, heading the NLRC First Division, then overturned that order and directed payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.
Complainant alleges he was denied due process. He claims he was not furnished a copy of the corporation’s appeal memorandum to the NLRC, was not given an opportunity to comment on it, and that the corporation did not post the required appeal bond or effect reinstatement. He also asserts Quimpo should have inhibited himself, as the NLRC First Division was a public respondent in the original Supreme Court case. Complainant admits receiving a monetary award but contends it was his rightful due from the final judgment, not a bond for the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Geobel A. Bartolabac and Atty. Alberto R. Quimpo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by disregarding a final Supreme Court judgment and denying complainant due process.

RULING

The Court found respondent Atty. Geobel A. Bartolabac guilty of misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. The case against Atty. Alberto R. Quimpo was dismissed.
The legal logic centers on the finality of judgments and a lawyer’s duty to the legal process. A decision that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable. As officers of the court, lawyers, including those serving in quasi-judicial capacities like Labor Arbiters, are bound to respect and implement such final orders. Bartolabac’s issuance of orders substituting separation pay for reinstatement, and later assigning a different position, constituted a unilateral alteration of the Supreme Court’s definitive mandate. This was a clear defiance of a final judgment, violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law and legal processes and to avoid deceitful conduct. His actions undermined judicial authority and denied complainant the specific remedy of reinstatement ordered by the Court.
Regarding due process allegations against Quimpo, the Court found the NLRC’s resolution was based on the corporation’s appeal and the records before it. The claim of lack of opportunity to comment was not sufficiently substantiated. The monetary award received by complainant was properly adjudicated as satisfaction of the judgment, not an appeal bond. The charge of non-inhibition was also without merit, as the NLRC Division’s prior role as a public respondent in the certiorari proceeding did not inherently constitute bias warranting inhibition in the execution phase. Thus, the complaint against Quimpo failed to meet the required substantial evidence.