G.R. No. A.C. No. 7732 March 30, 2009
RODANTE D. MARCOLETA, Complainant vs. RESURRECCION Z. BORRA AND ROMEO A. BRAWNER, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta filed a disbarment complaint against Comelec Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner. The complaint arose from the Comelec’s resolution of an intra-party dispute within the party-list group Alagad during the 2007 elections, where competing factions led by complainant and Diogenes S. Osabel each filed separate nominee lists. The Comelec’s First Division, through an Omnibus Resolution dated July 18, 2007 penned by Commissioner Borra with Commissioner Brawner concurring, ruled in favor of Osabel’s group. This was later reversed by the Comelec En Banc but, due to a failure to obtain a required majority vote, the First Division’s resolution was eventually affirmed. Complainant alleged the respondents violated judicial canons and ethical standards by: (1) deliberately delaying the resolution of the case beyond the mandated period to ensure Alagad won a seat before deciding; (2) manipulating and muddling the issues in their ruling; (3) failing to cite applicable laws in their resolution; (4) exhibiting partiality and bad faith in their evaluation of evidence; and (5) submitting inadequate or “twisted” dissenting opinions. Complainant also filed a supplemental complaint alleging respondent Brawner tampered with records. Respondent Brawner argued the proper remedy was a judicial appeal via certiorari and that as impeachable officers, they were insulated from disbarment. Respondent Borra contended the judicial canons did not apply to them as non-judges and that the complaint was premature and harassive. During the pendency of the case, respondent Brawner passed away and respondent Borra retired from the Comelec.

ISSUE

Whether respondents, as impeachable officers who are members of the Bar, can be subject to disbarment proceedings for alleged official actions taken in their capacity as Comelec Commissioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the disbarment complaint. The Court ruled that an impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. This rule, established in prior jurisprudence (Jarque v. Ombudsman, In Re: Raul M. Gonzales, Cuenco v. Fernan), applies to respondents as members of a Constitutional Commission. The Court found complainant’s argument—that the constitutional provision requiring a majority of Comelec members to be lawyers implied some members could be disbarred—to be specious. The retirement of respondent Borra did not automatically call for dismissal, but the core of the complaint pertained to alleged errors of judgment in an official resolution. Such alleged errors are proper for judicial review via appeal, not for administrative disbarment. The Court noted that prescribed periods for resolution are directory for the Comelec given its caseload. Furthermore, while Section 58 of the Omnibus Election Code subjects Comelec members to the canons of judicial ethics in discharging their quasi-judicial functions, this relates to guiding their discretion and does not equate their position to that of members of the judiciary for purposes of disbarment. The complaint against respondent Brawner was rendered moot by his death.