View full case

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL v. ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE

FACTS:

This case is a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon. Salayon, then an election officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, while Llorente, the City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman. The complaint alleges that respondents tampered with the votes received by the complainant, who was a candidate for the Senate in the May 8, 1995 elections. The complainant alleges that certain senatorial candidates were credited with excessive votes while his votes were reduced. He argues that respondents committed a serious breach of public trust and their lawyer's oath by signing Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despite knowledge of falsified entries. Respondents, however, deny the allegations and attribute the errors to honest mistakes, oversight, and fatigue. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended the dismissal of the complaint, but the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The complainant then filed this petition. It is also mentioned that the complainant filed criminal charges against respondents with the COMELEC, which dismissed the charges for insufficiency of evidence, but upon a petition for certiorari filed by the complainant, this Court directed the COMELEC to file appropriate criminal charges against respondents.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondents are guilty of gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath in connection with their duties as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers.

  2. Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) tolls the running of the period of appeal.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondents are guilty of misconduct.

  2. No, the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the IBP does not toll the running of the period of appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A motion for reconsideration is not a prohibited pleading under Rule 139-B, §12(c) of the Rules of Court. It may be filed within 15 days from notice to a party and should be encouraged before resorting to the court to allow the agency rendering the judgment an opportunity to correct any errors.

  • It is the burden of the party alleging late filing to show that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period.

  • Delay in filing a petition for disbarment may be overlooked if the complaint has merit and is undertaken for the public welfare. The sole question for determination in disbarment proceedings is whether a member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.