G.R. No. A.C. No. 7594. February 09, 2016
Adelpha E. Malabed, Complainant, vs. Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Adelpha E. Malabed filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The charges stemmed from three primary allegations. First, complainant alleged respondent used a Certificate to File Action in a civil case that pertained to a different complaint, thereby misleading the court regarding compliance with a mandatory requirement. Second, she accused respondent of failing to furnish her counsel a copy of a free patent title (OCT No. 1730) he submitted to the Court of Appeals, hindering her defense, and she presented certifications from the DENR and Registry of Deeds claiming the title was non-existent. Third, she charged respondent with grave misconduct for accepting positions as Associate Dean and Professor at a state university, thereby violating the perpetual disqualification from government reemployment that was an accessory penalty to his prior dismissal from the judiciary.
In his Comment, respondent denied the charges. He asserted the Certificate to File Action was proper, claimed the title copy was in the case records, and argued the notarization of a related deed did not create a conflict of interest. Regarding the government employment, respondent admitted holding the academic positions but contended the issue was moot as he was no longer connected, his role was temporary, he only received honoraria, and he had informed the Office of the Bar Confidant without objection.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña is administratively liable for gross misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. The Court upheld the IBP’s findings but increased the penalty. On the substantive charges, the Court found respondent’s use of an inapplicable Certificate to File Action constituted dishonesty, as it was a deliberate act to mislead the court on a jurisdictional requirement. More critically, the Court focused on respondent’s conduct during the IBP investigation. His pleadings contained offensive and irrelevant personal attacks against complainant and her counsel, using derogatory language and alleging immoral conduct. This behavior constituted gross misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action, willful in character, and implying wrongful intent. Such conduct violates the lawyer’s oath and the duty to maintain respect for the courts and legal processes. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s language must be dignified and respectful, and respondent’s actions demonstrated a lack of the integrity and propriety required of a member of the Bar. His prior dismissal from the judiciary as a judge further underscored the seriousness of his repeated misconduct. The two-year suspension serves as a sanction for this gross misconduct.