Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015augustdecisions.php?id=617
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:24:38+00:00

Document:
MARY ANN T. FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., Respondent.
In a Resolution1 dated 21 March 2014 in Administrative Case No. 7314, Mary Ann T. Flores v. Atty. Jovencio LL. Mayor, Jr., the Board of Governors (Board) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation2 of the Investigating Commissioner3 finding respondent guilty of violation of his sworn duty not to delay any man's cause for money or malice and disbarring him from the practice of law.
On 15 November 2003, complainant claimed that the counsel of her husband received from the CA a Notice of Transmittal of Records of Case dated 19 August 2003 addressed to the Clerk of Court of the NLRC.
As respondent was not acting on the Motion for Execution, the counsel of Flores filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation on 20 September 2004 praying that the motion be resolved with dispatch.
Upon inquiry with respondent's labor arbitration associate, the counsel learned that the records of the case were still being requested from the Records Section of the NLRC.13 Apparently, as shown in the Certification14 dated 13 October 2004 issued by a Records Officer of the NLRC, the case records had been sent for archiving sometime in 2003 and were difficult to retrieve.
In a Resolution18 dated 11 April 2007, this Court referred the administrative case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
We find as unacceptable the respondent's gross delay in performing what is supposedly a purely ministerial act on his part, his unexplained and unsanctioned resort to "archiving" which led to the disappearance of the case records, and his gross ignorance of the law in refusing to issue a writ of execution against what the SEC has essentially certified to be a company hiding under a new name. We believe that the respondent's actions were not a product of ignorance, indolence, or negligence, but rather, were clearly borne out of a willful, deliberate, and wholly malicious intent to misuse his position by favoring one of the parties in NLRC Case No. 99-06-0972, thus causing no small degree of serious injury to the complainant therein and to the integrity of the legal process as a whole.
In a Resolution21 dated 14 August 2008, the IBP Board adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation with modification, lowering the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for three years.
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and other ethical standards.
We adopt the IBP Board Resolution.
There is a clear neglect of duty and ignorance of the law on the part of respondent on account of his failure to immediately act on the Motion for Execution, as well as his refusal to amend the Writ of Execution despite having been informed of the amendment of the name - but not the dissolution — of the corporation against which the writ was issued.
The justification offered by respondent to explain his delay in acting o|n the motion cannot be countenanced, as it was through his fault that the records of the case were lost. That he archived the case records at the NLRC Records Section, not on the basis of official or sanctioned guidelines but only because it was the common practice in his office, reflects his lack of due diligence and care in the custody of official documents.
Respondent also erroneously interprets jurisprudence when he insists that the writ could not have been issued against F.O. Maidin International Services, Inc., because it was not a party to the case. His argument contravenes the pronouncement of the Court in Republic Planters Bank v. Court of Appeals,27 in which it said that "a change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, and whether effected by special act or under general law, has no effect on the identity of the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities."
As a Labor Arbiter, respondent is a public officer28 who must at all times be accountable to the people, whom he must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.29 The unjustified delay in his actions and his failure to act according to law constituted a breach of his accountability not only to complainant, but also to the public in general.
The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.
Herein respondent was already suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months in another case, Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr.,39 in which he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. For that offense, he was warned that the commission of the same or a similar offense in the future would result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. In light of respondent's previous suspension from the practice of law in an earlier administrative case as above-mentioned, the recommendation of the IBP Board to disbar respondent is only proper.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR. guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall forthwith record it in the personal files of respondent; all the Courts of the Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the Philippines.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., and Bersamin, JJ., no part.
Brion, and Reyes, JJ., on leave.
Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave.
3 Atty. Rico A, Limpingco.
8 Id. at 20-29. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Danilo B. Pine concurring.
22 Id. at 269-297. T Id. at 307.
25See the Bar Confidant's Report for Agenda at the end of the rollo.
26Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No. 7430, 15 February 2012.
27 G.R. No. 93073, 21 December 1992, 216 SCRA 738.
29 CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 1.
30 Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 3.
31 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1.
32Alitagtag v. Garcia, 426 Phil. 542-547 (2003), citing De Ere v. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617, 622 (1999).
34Alitagtag v. Garcia, 426 Phil. 542-547 (2003), citing Resurrection v. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129, 136 (1998) and T-Boli Agro-Industrial Development Inc. v. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499 (2002).
36 Alitagtag v. Garcia, 426 Phil. 542-547 (2003).
39Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., A.C, No. 7430, 15 February 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.