G.R. No. A.C. No. 2468 May 12, 1995
Nilo L. Miraflor and Primo L. Miraflor, complainants, vs. Atty. Juan M. Hagad, Atty. Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., Atty. Roland V. Evangelista, Insular Lumber Co. (Phil)., Inc. and Mariano P. Aledron, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Nilo and Primo Miraflor filed an administrative complaint against respondents, including three lawyers, for alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice in NLRC Case No. ROVI-404-73. Nilo had won a labor case for illegal dismissal against Insular Lumber Co. (ILCOPHIL), with orders for reinstatement and payment of backwages and benefits. Respondent Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre Jr. issued a writ of execution but later, upon motion filed by ILCOPHIL through its counsel, respondent Atty. Juan M. Hagad, reduced the computed backwages and set hearings on other monetary claims. Complainants alleged that these acts, along with ILCOPHIL’s subsequent motions, were deliberate legal maneuvers to thwart the execution of the final decision.
The complainants specifically accused Atty. Aguirre Jr. of improperly altering the award and failing to defend his own decision, Atty. Hagad of employing “legal contortions” to serve his client’s interests, and Atty. Evangelista (ILCOPHIL’s Personnel Manager) of complicity through silence. The respondents countered that their actions were within legal bounds: Aguirre Jr. asserted he was complying with due process, Hagad claimed he was merely exercising his duty to avail all legal remedies for his client, and Evangelista denied any involvement as he was not yet employed by the company when the case originated.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, particularly the lawyer-respondents, are administratively liable for gross misconduct or obstruction of justice based on their alleged conspiracy to frustrate the execution of a final labor judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic is clear: the acts complained of constitute the legitimate exercise of professional duties and legal rights, not obstruction of justice. For Atty. Hagad, filing a motion for reconsideration to protect his client’s interest is a fundamental duty under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence. Utilizing available legal remedies cannot be deemed malicious; otherwise, it would penalize diligent advocacy. For Atty. Aguirre Jr., as a Labor Arbiter, granting a party the opportunity to present evidence, such as a claim of the complainant’s gainful employment to mitigate backwages, is a compliance with due process and the directive for further adjudication. No evidence of malice or improper motive was presented to overturn this presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Regarding Atty. Evangelista, no evidence linked him to any active role in the legal strategy. The Court also noted the complainants’ lack of interest in pursuing the charges over a long period, which cast doubt on the complaint’s merit. Thus, without proof of malicious intent or unethical conduct, the respondents’ actions were within the permissible bounds of legal practice and procedure.