IBP Election October 6, 1989 A.M. No.

491 Facts The new national officers of the IBP who were elected on June 3, 1989 were schedule to take their oath but was suspended by the SC because of a widespread news and allegation that the said election was done with extensive electioneering, overspending of candidates, use of government planes and officious intervention influencing votes which were done contrary to the IBP-bylaws by the candidates namely Atty. Drilon, Atty. Nisce and Atty. Paculdo. The court issued subpoena to all persons concerned; the columnist, the candidates, managers of Hotels and other persons that would help shed some light to the truth of the said allegation surrounding the IBP election. Issue Whether or not the candidates had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through their defiance of the IBP-bylaws. Ruling Yes, the court found through the testimony and evidences presented like the testimony of the candidate4s themselves, their disclosure of their campaign expenses, testimony of other lawyers and persons to the acts of the candidates in the preparation to the election clearly violated Sec 14 of the IBPbylaws and made travesty of the idea of a strictly non-political IBP The candidates and many of the participants in the election, not only violated the IBP-bylaws but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyer as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to respect for law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system (Rule 1.01 Canon 1). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves who are supposed to be minions of the law engages in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.