Festin vs Zubiri (2017)

Facts:
 Festin alleged that he was elected as Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in May 2013
 His opponent Villarosa filed an election protest against him before the RTC
 RTC ruled in favor of Villarosa and issued an Order granting his Motion for Execution Pending Appeal after
the lapse of 20 working days counted from time complainant’s counsel receives a copy if no restraining order
is issued
 Festin filed before the COMELEC seeking a TRO against the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal
 COMELEC issued TRO directing RTC Judge to desist from enforcing the Order
 RTC issued another Order: OIC-Branch (COC) is directed not to issue a Writ of Execution until further notice
 Despite the TRO and RTC’s Order, Atty. Zubiri as counsel of Villarosa, filed 5 manifestations addressed to the
COC insisting on the writ’s issuance
 Atty. Zubiri did not serve copies of the manifestations to the other party and claimed that his client received
the RTC’s Order on Jan 18, 2014, and counting from said date, the 20-day period ended on Feb 12, 2014
 Since COMELEC only issued the TRO on Feb 13, 2014, the TRO no longer had any effect
 Atty. Zubiri asserted that the TRO was addressed only to the RTC Judge and not to the COC
 Atty. Zubiri insisted that the COC could legally issue the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal
 COC issued a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal addressed to the sheriff but Festin only found out about Atty.
Zubiri’s manifestations when the sheriff attempted to serve the writ on him
 Festin filed the disbarment complaint
 Festin argued that Atty. Zubiri violated his ethical duties when he misled and induced the COC to defy lawful
orders: COMELEC’s TRO and RTC’s Order
 Atty. Zubiri claimed that:
1) The case records had been transmitted to the COMELEC and RTC had no more power to issue the Feb
25 2014 Order
2) The manifestations did not have misleading statements and he had honest belief that 20-day period
already lapsed when COMELEC issued its TRO
 IBP’s Report and Recommendation: Atty. Zubiri be suspended for 6 months because he disregarded the rule
that motions shall be served on the other party
 A manifestation merely informs the court about a certain matter involving the case but the manifestations filed
by Atty. Zubiri were actually motions
 IBP approved the Report and Recommendation

Issue: W/N Atty. Zubiri should be held administratively liable

Ruling: YES. HE was suspended for 3 months from the practice of law
 Canon 10.03: A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice
 Atty. Zubiri improperly filed 5 motions as “manifestations” to avoid the requirement of Notice of Hearing for
Motions
 He violated his professional obligations to respect and observe procedural rules, not to misuse the rules to cause
injustice, and to exhibit fairness towards his professional colleague
 Difference of manifestation and a motion is essential:
o Manifestation: merely for the information of the court and the manifesting party makes a statement
to inform the court
o Motion: an application for relief from the court other than by a pleading and must be accompanied
by a notice of hearing and proof of service to the other party
 Motion without notice of hearing is pro forma or a mere scrap of paper thus the court has no reason to consider
it and clerk no right to receive it
 Atty. Zubiri labeled his motions as manifestations and deprived the other party to oppose his arguments
 Atty. Zubiri submitted these manifestations directly to COC instead of RTC when the Feb 25 2014 Order
explicitly directed the COC not to issue a Writ of Execution