Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40427:adm-case-no-4680-august-29,-2000-aquilino-q-pimentel,-jr-v-antonio-m-llorente,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:24:55+00:00

Document:
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P. SALAYON, Respondents.
Respondents denied the allegations against them. They alleged that the preparation of the SoVs was made by the 12 canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to assist in the canvassing. They claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.
In his Consolidated Reply, complainant counters that respondents should be held responsible for the illegal padding of the votes considering the nature and extent of the irregularities and the fact that the canvassing of the election returns was done under their control and supervision.
On December 4, 1998, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which this matter had been referred pursuant to Rule 139-B, §13, in relation to §20 of the Rules of Court, recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 3 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March 11, 1999, but his motion was denied in a resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dated April 22, 1999. On June 4, 1999, he filed this petition pursuant to Rule 139-B, §12(c).
It appears that complainant likewise filed criminal charges against respondents before the COMELEC (E.O. Case No. 96-1132) for violation of R.A. No. 6646, §27(b). In its resolution dated January 8, 1998, the COMELEC dismissed complainant’s charges for insufficiency of evidence. However, on a petition for certiorari filed by complainant, 4 this Court set aside the resolution and directed the COMELEC to file appropriate criminal charges against respondents. Reconsideration was denied on August 15, 2000.
Considering the foregoing facts, we hold that respondents are guilty of misconduct.
First. Respondent Llorente seeks the dismissal of the present petition on the ground that it was filed late. He contends that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 139-B, §12(c) 5 and, therefore, the filing of such motion before the IBP Board of Governors did not toll the running of the period of appeal. Respondent further contends that, assuming such motion can be filed, petitioner nevertheless failed to indicate the date of his receipt of the April 22, 1999 resolution of the IBP denying his motion for reconsideration so that it cannot be ascertained whether his petition was filed within the 15-day period under Rule 139-B, §12(c).
Even in ordinary civil actions, the period for perfecting appeals is relaxed in the interest of justice and equity where the appealed case is clearly meritorious. Thus, we have given due course to appeals even though filed six, 14 four, 15 and three 16 days late. In this case, the petition is clearly meritorious.
The recommendation is unacceptable. In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is required to establish liability. 18 As long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken judicial notice of by the Court 19 is more convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, 20 the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified..
In this case, respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs.
Despite the fact that these discrepancies, especially the double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC, were apparent on the face of these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of votes, respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct. Their acts constitute misconduct.
Nor does the fact that the canvassing was open to the public and observed by numerous individuals preclude the commission of acts for which respondents are liable. The fact is that only they had access to the SoVs and CoC and thus had the opportunity to compare them and detect the discrepancies therein.
It may be added that, as lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust.
Third. Respondents’ participation in the irregularities herein reflects on the legal profession, in general, and on lawyers in government in particular. Such conduct in the performance of their official duties, involving no less than the ascertainment of the popular will as expressed through the ballot, would have merited for them suspension were it not for the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and, in the case of Salayon, after a long public service. 29 Under the circumstances, a penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00 for each of the respondents should be sufficient.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon GUILTY of misconduct and imposes on each of them a FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 with a WARNING that commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
1.	Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, §221(b). The third member of the Board, Ceferino Adamos, now deceased, was the Clerk of Court of the Pasig City Metropolitan Trial Court.
2.	SEC. 27. Election Offenses. — In addition to the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in Section 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense.
(b)	Any member of the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election . . .
4.	Pimentel, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133509, Feb. 9, 2000.
(c)	If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise.
6.	253 SCRA 1 (1996).
8.	Counted from May 18, 1999, the 15th day falls on June 2, 1999.
9.	Tajan v. Cusi, Jr., 57 SCRA 154 (1974); In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970); Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93 (1998).
10.	See Pangan v. Ramos, 107 SCRA 1 (1981); In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 (1928).
11.	Calo v. Degamo, 20 SCRA 447 (1967).
12.	In re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, 66 SCRA 245 (1975).
13.	Agripino Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1 (1977).
14.	Republic v. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 453 (1978).
15.	Ramos v. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 395 (1980).
16.	Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 304 (1995).
17.	IBP Report, p. 5; Rollo, p. 121.
18.	In re Tionko, 43 Phil. 191 (1922); Re. Agripino A. Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1 (1977).
19.	See Prudential Bank v. Castro, 155 SCRA 604 (1987); Richards v. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45 (1987).
20.	Republic v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 161 (1991).
21.	G.R. No. 133509, Feb. 9, 2000.
23.	E.g., Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections, 199 SCRA 849 (1991); Angelia v. Tan, G.R. No. 135468, May 31, 2000.
25.	Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 (1989).
26.	Collantes v. Renomeron, 200 SCRA 584 (1991); (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 (1989); See RUBEN AGPALO, LEGAL ETHICS 425 (4th ed., 1989).
27.	158 SCRA 497 (1988).
29.	She first served in the lower courts before working in the Supreme Court from 1981-1990 (Comment, p. 5; Rollo, p. 48).

References: v. 
 §13
 §20
 §12
 §27
 §12
 §12
 §221
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.