Malecdan v. Baldo

Posted Jun 27, 2018

By Anonymous

4 min read

Malecdan v. Baldo

Case Title and Citation

Celestino Malecdan, complainant, vs. Atty. Simpson T. Baldo, respondent.
A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322), June 27, 2018
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Carpio

Facts

Malecdan filed a complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and Damages before the Lupon of Barangay Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet.
On August 14, 2014, Atty. Baldo appeared as counsel for the spouses Baldo during the hearing before the Punong Barangay.
On August 18, 2014, Malecdan filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter seeking sanctions against Baldo for alleged violation of PD 1508.
On August 20, 2014, the IBP Committee on Ethics furnished Baldo with a copy of the complaint and set a conciliation conference for September 12, 2014.
On September 15, 2014, the Complaint was endorsed to the CBD-IBP after the parties failed to settle.
The CBD-IBP issued an order on September 17, 2014, requiring Baldo to submit a verified answer within 15 days.
On January 14, 2015, the CBD-IBP issued a notice setting the mandatory conference for February 18, 2015.
On February 12, 2015, Malecdan filed his Mandatory Conference Brief.
On February 23, 2015, the mandatory conference was rescheduled to March 24, 2015 after Baldo failed to attend.
In Baldo’s Answer dated February 23, 2015, Baldo admitted being present at the barangay proceedings and claimed he was permitted to participate in dialogue with the complainant and his companion to amicably settle the matter.
On March 24, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner gave Malecdan 15 days to file a supplemental complaint; Baldo was given 15 days to file a supplemental answer.
On March 31, 2015, Malecdan filed a Verified Supplemental Complaint, reiterating that Baldo’s presence during the barangay proceedings violated PD 1508 and that he objected to Baldo’s participation.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended a warning against Baldo on June 2, 2015, noting the language of PD 1508 is not crystal clear on prohibiting appearances, but that Baldo’s attendance showed lack of propriety.
The IBP Board of Governors, however, reversed the recommendation and reprimanded Baldo on June 20, 2015, finding that Baldo’s appearance as counsel in the Katarungang Pambarangay hearing contravened PD 1508.
The case proceeded to the Court, which upheld the IBP Board of Governors’ finding and reprimand.

Issues

Did Atty. Baldo’s appearance before the Lupon in the Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings violate Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508 (PD 1508)?
Is reprimand with a stem warning the appropriate sanction for such violation?

Ruling

Yes — Baldo’s appearance before the Lupon violated Section 9 of PD 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay), which requires personal confrontation between the parties without counsel, and the exceptions are exclusive to minors and incompetents.
Yes — The appropriate sanction is reprimand with a stem warning; the act warranted a more severe sanction if repeated.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 of PD 1508 mandates personal confrontation of the parties without the intervention of counsel or representative, establishing a mandatory requirement for barangay conciliation proceedings.
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals (286 Phil. 917, 1992) supports that the personal confrontation is essential to the effectiveness of barangay conciliation and that the language is mandatory; the “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” principle reinforces that only the stated exceptions (minors and incompetents) are allowed.
The barangay proceedings in question occurred with Baldo acting as counsel for the spouses Baldo, which contravened the PD 1508 mandate.
Baldo admitted to participating in the proceedings and did not establish any permissible exception under PD 1508; his actions breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which require lawyers to obey laws and legal processes.
The IBP Board of Governors’ reprimand was upheld as the appropriate sanction, given the circumstances and the absence of a clear prohibition against appearances in this context, but the act warranted a warning to deter repetition.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Katarungang Pambarangay PD 1508 Section 9 imposes mandatory personal confrontation in barangay conciliation proceedings; appearances by counsel are generally prohibited.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: exceptions in PD 1508 (minors and incompetents) are exclusive and not to be extended.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require lawyers to obey laws and legal processes and to refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals supports the policy rationale behind mandatory personal confrontation to facilitate amicable settlement at the barangay level.

Disposition

The Respondent, Atty. Simpson T. Baldo, is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR in connection with PD 1508 Section 9.
He is reprimanded with a stem warning; a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
The administrative complaint is sustained; the sanction is a reprimand with stem warning.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

None indicated; the decision record shows concurrence by Justices Carpio (Chair), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Reyes, Jr.

Significance / Notes

Reasserts the mandatory nature of PD 1508’s personal appearance requirement in Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings and clarifies that counsel’s participation is generally impermissible.
Establishes that violations by practicing attorneys may be met with reprimand and stem warnings, contributing to discipline standards for lawyers handling barangay-level disputes.
reinforces the duty of lawyers to comply with both procedural laws and ethical standards, upholding the integrity of the barangay dispute resolution process.

Judicial Ethics Public Officers Remedial Law

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.