A.C. No. 6674; June 30, 2009
Robert Bernhard Buehs, Complainant, vs. Atty. Inocencio T. Bacatan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Robert Buehs was an officer of Mar Fishing Company, Inc., the respondent in a labor case for illegal dismissal filed by employees Genaro Alvarez and Sergia Malukuh. The case, docketed as NCMB RB IX Case No. VA-12-0045-879, was assigned to respondent Atty. Inocencio Bacatan in his capacity as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Atty. Bacatan rendered a decision in favor of the employees, which eventually became final and executory. During the execution stage, Atty. Bacatan issued a levy on execution against properties of Miramar Fish Company, Inc., prompting a separate court action that resulted in an injunction against him.
While the execution proceedings were ongoing, Alvarez and Malukuh, represented by Atty. Bacatan as their counsel, filed a criminal complaint against Buehs for violation of the Labor Code. Atty. Bacatan endorsed this complaint, signing as “counsel for complainants.” Subsequently, without notice or hearing, he issued an Order directing the Bureau of Immigration to place Buehs on its watchlist and issue a Hold Departure Order, a copy of which was not furnished to Buehs.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Bacatan should be held administratively liable for representing conflicting interests and for gross misconduct/ignorance of the law in issuing a Hold Departure Order.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and suspended Atty. Bacatan from the practice of law for two years.
First, Atty. Bacatan violated the rule against representation of conflicting interests under Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By acting as counsel for Alvarez and Malukuh in the criminal case against Buehs while he was the Voluntary Arbitrator in the labor case where Buehs was the adverse party, he placed himself in a position of conflict. His duty as a former arbitrator to remain impartial and avoid the appearance of bias continued through the execution stage of the same case. His claim of being functus officio after rendering the decision and that the “counsel” designation was a misprint were unconvincing. His active endorsement of the criminal complaint demonstrated a clear conflict, breaching the trust expected of a lawyer and undermining public confidence in the legal profession.
Second, Atty. Bacatan committed gross ignorance of the law and usurped judicial authority by issuing the Hold Departure Order. Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 explicitly vests the authority to issue Hold Departure Orders in regional trial courts in certain cases. As a voluntary arbitrator, he possessed no such judicial power. Issuing the order without notice and hearing constituted a blatant disregard of established rules and procedures, amounting to gross misconduct. The Court also noted his failure to update his IBP membership dues as a further violation of his professional obligations. The two-year suspension serves as a penalty for these compounded infractions, which erode the integrity of the legal system.