A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC

EN BANC

A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC (In Re: Brewing Controversies in the Elections in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines)

A.C. No. 8292 (Attys. Marcial M. Magsino, et al. v. Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, et al.)

Promulgated:

December 14, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

VELASCO, JR. J.:

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I am constrained to register my dissent.

A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC originated from three (3) separate Protests filed regarding the elections for the Regional Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the Greater Manila Region (hereafter, GMR), Western Visayas, and Western Mindanao held in April 2007 for a term of two (2) years starting July 1, 2007. Consolidated with A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC is A.C. No. 8292 filed by Attys. Marcial M. Magsino, Manuel M. Maramba and Nasser A. Marohomsalic against Attys. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Evergisto S. Escalon, Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr., Abelardo C. Estrada, and Raymund Jorge A. Mercado for grave professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath and acts inimical to the IBP.

The facts culled from the pleadings and evidence extant on record are as follows:

The GMR Election Protest

(Atty. Elpidio Soriano v. Atty. Manuel M. Maramba)

Atty. Victoria Loanzon, the incumbent Treasurer of the IBP-Quezon City Chapter (IBP-QC Chapter), filed an undated letter on April 15, 2009 with the office of the outgoing IBP National President, Atty. Feliciano Bautista, seeking an interpretation of Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Sec. 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws in reference to the qualification of the delegates who would vote in the election for GMR Governor on April 25, 2009.[1] Said Sections read:

Section 8. Delegates. – The President shall concurrently be the Delegate of the Chapter to the House of Delegates. The Vice President shall be his alternate, unless the chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate, in which case the Vice President shall also be a Delegate. Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the Board.”

Section 31. Membership. – The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of all the Chapter Presidents and in the case of Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice President is already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be members ex officio of the House, without the right to vote.

The Loanzon letter was taken up in the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) meeting held on April 17, 2009. In attendance were five (5) IBP Governors, namely:

Gov. Marcial Magsino Greater Manila (Sponsor)

Gov. Ramon Edison Batacan Eastern Mindanao (Affirmative vote)

Gov. Carlos Valdez, Jr. Western Mindanao (Affirmative vote)

Gov. Raymund Jorge Mercado Western Visayas (Abstain/Affirmative)

Gov. Evergisto Escalon Eastern Visayas (Negative vote)[2]

Upon motion of then Governor Marcial Magsino, the Board approved, by a vote of 4-1, Resolution No. XVIII-2009, which I quote:

Resolved as it is hereby resolved by this Board of Governors that in case of Chapters entitled to more than two delegates as provided under Section 8, Chapter By-Laws of Article IV, Section 29 and Article V, Section 31 of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the additional delegate(s) shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board, in consideration of their mandate from the general membership of the Chapter.[3]

On the belief that BOG Resolution No. XVIII-2009 imposed an additional qualification for the Delegates to be elected by the Board of Officers of IBP Chapters that are entitled to more than two (2) delegates, the IBP-QC Chapter, through its Board of Officers, passed Resolution No. 09-005, dated April 20, 2009, urging the BOG to recall Resolution No. XVIII-2009.[4] Resolution No. 09-005 was received by the Office of the National President on April 21, 2009.[5]

On April 23, 2009, five (5) members of the BOG, namely: Gov. Rogelio A. Vinluan (Executive Vice President and Governor for Southern Luzon); Gov. Abelardo C. Estrada (Governor for Northern Luzon); Gov. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. (Governor for Bicolandia); Gov. Evergisto S. Escalon (Governor for Eastern Visayas); and Gov. Raymund Jorge A. Mercado (Governor for Western Visayas), met at the National Office. They voted unanimously to recall and set aside Resolution No. XVIII-2009, through another resolution which reads:

Resolved, further, that the appropriate interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-Laws, consistent with the long established practice of the IBP, is that the election of the additional delegate(s) for Chapters entitled to more than two (2) delegates shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter from among the general membership who are in good standing to include the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board.[6]

On the same day, the Board of Officers of the IBP-QC Chapter held a special meeting where the majority of its officers nominated Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III as candidate for the position of Governor for GMR. At the same time, the Board elected its Delegates for the election of the IBP Governor for GMR to be held on April 25, 2009. The following won as official, elected regular, and elected alternate delegates, of the Chapter pursuant to Resolution No. 09-007,[7] viz:

Official Delegates	Elected Alternate Delegates
1. Tranquil G. S. Salvador III	Ruel Ulysses E. De Guzman
2. Jonas L. Cabochan	Sherwin V. Reyes
Elected Regular Delegates	Elected Alternate Delegates
1. Christian R. Fernandez (Secretary)	Roland A. Tulay
2. Ginger Anne S. Castillo (Auditor)	Anthony Raymond M. Velicaria
3. Ernesto A. Tabujara III (P.R.O.)	Anna Celeste P. Bernad
4. Annalou S. Nachura (Director)	Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-Trinidad
5. Melody S. Sampaga (Director)	Rhea R. Julian
6. Joseph Cerezo (Director)	Cherrie B. Belmonte-Lim
7. Francois D. Rivera III (Director)	Gerely C. Rico
8. Renato M. Callanta (Past President)	Ramon C. Chingcuangco
9. George S. Briones (Past President)	Felix Jasper D.C. Tumaneng

In the same special meeting, IBP-QC Chapter Treasurer, Atty. Loanzon and Director Atty. Marita Iris Laqui, who were both present, were nominated for the position of chapter delegates. However, they failed to get elected.

During the April 25, 2009 election of the IBP Governor of GMR, then incumbent GMR Governor Magsino, who was Presiding Officer of the GMR elections, noted the IBP-QC Chapter Resolution No. 09-007.[8] He also acknowledged the April 24, 2009 Memorandum issued by IBP President Atty. Bautista:

MEMORANDUM

TO : EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ROGELIO A. VINLUAN

GOVERNOR ABELARDO C. ESTRADA

GOVERNOR ERNESTO A. GONZALES, JR.

GOVERNOR MARCIAL M. MAGSINO

GOVERNOR BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR.

GOVERNOR EVERGISTO S. ESCALON

GOVERNOR RAYMUND JORGE M. MERCADO

GOVERNOR RAMON EDISON C. BATACAN

GOVERNOR CARLOS L. VALDEZ, JR.

RE : ELECTION OF REGIONAL GOVERNORS, APRIL 25, 2009

FROM : NATIONAL PRESIDENT

DATE : APRIL 24, 2009

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

For purposes of the conduct of the election of the Regional Governors tomorrow, April 25, 2009, only the following resolution passed and approved at the regular meeting of the Board of Governors on April 17, 2009 will apply, to wit:

RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2009-____

“Resolved as it is hereby resolved by this Board of Governors that in case of Chapters entitled to more than two delegates as provided under Section 8, Chapter By-Laws of Article IV, Section 29 and Article V, Section 31 of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the additional delegate(s) shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board, in consideration of their mandate from the general membership of the Chapter.”

No other resolution shall be applicable.

For your strict compliance and guidance.

(Sgd.) FELICIANO M. BAUTISTA[9]

Pursuant to Bautista’s Memorandum, Gov. Magsino declared Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui as Delegates of the IBP-QC Chapter[10] entitled to vote in the election of the GMR Governor.

Atty. Tranquil Salvador III, the incumbent President of the IBP-QC Chapter, questioned the declaration of Magsino for the following reasons: (1) the April 23, 2009 Resolution issued by the BOG superseded the April 17, 2009 Resolution, alleging that the latter was in violation of the IBP By-Laws, particularly Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V thereof; (2) the Presiding Officer, Gov. Magsino, wrote a letter dated April 20, 2009 addressed to Atty. Salvador, advising him to require the regular and alternate delegates to attend the election of the new IBP Governor for GMR, without any reference to the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG; and (3) the Board of Officers of the IBP-QC Chapter has passed a Resolution electing their regular and alternate delegates pursuant to the IBP By-Laws and the April 23, 2009 Resolution of the BOG.[11]

Gov. Magsino overruled the challenge of Salvador and explained that the April 23, 2009 Resolution of the BOG is void, because: (1) the IBP National President was not present at the special meeting which resulted in the issuance of such resolution; (2) there was no quorum in the April 23, 2009 special meeting as only four (4) governors met and approved the resolution; and (3) the recall of the April 17, 2009 Resolution was not validly done, as the recall of a Resolution needs the 3/4 vote of the BOG.[12]

Atty. Salvador, however, countered that the IBP By-Laws should be controlling and that the IBP-QC Chapter merely complied with the IBP By-Laws when it elected its regular and alternate delegates, who should be the only delegates from IBP-QC Chapter allowed to vote. To resolve the issue, Atty. Salvador suggested that all the elected delegates of IBP-QC Chapter, as well as two (2) officers not elected as delegates (Loanzon and Laqui), be allowed to vote. Thereafter, the four (4) votes in question can be set aside and opened only if these would be determinative of the results of the election. Gov. Magsino again disagreed with Atty. Salvador.[13]

Atty. Verena Kasilag-Villanueva of the Manila II Chapter posed the query if under both the April 17 and the April 23 BOG resolutions, the Delegates must be elected. Gov. Magsino, citing the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG,[14] answered in the affirmative.

Finally, Gov. Magsino ruled that the April 23, 2009 IBP-QC Chapter Resolution, electing its delegates, is illegal because: (1) it did not comply with the BOG April 17, 2009 Resolution that the delegates must be elected from among the Board of Officers of the Chapter concerned; and (2) it disenfranchised two (2) members of the Board of Officers of the IBP-QC Chapter––Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui.[15] Atty. Salvador opposed the view that Attys. Loanzon and Laqui were disenfranchised as, in fact, they were nominated for the position of Delegates but unfortunately were not elected. The procedure adopted by the IBP-QC was strictly in accordance with Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws.[16]

After voiding Board Resolution No. 09-007 of the IBP-QC Chapter, Gov. Magsino ruled that only officers of IBP-QC Chapter may be Delegates, and, thus, Attys. Loanzon and Laqui can vote as Delegates of their Chapter.[17]

Thereafter, the elections were held. Atty. Soriano and Atty. Maramba were nominated for the position of IBP Governor for GMR. After the casting of votes and counting of ballots, including those cast by Loanzon and Laqui (the alleged non-delegates), Atty. Maramba was declared winner by garnering a vote of 13 as against Atty. Soriano’s 12.[18]

On April 27, 2009, Atty. Soriano filed his Protest[19] with the office of the IBP National President pursuant to Section 40, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws.

The Western Mindanao Region Election Protest

(Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto v. Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic)

Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto of the IBP-Lanao del Sur Chapter was a nominee of the Lanao Del Sur Chapter for the position of IBP Governor for Western Mindanao. On the other hand, Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic of the IBP-Lanao del Sur Chapter was nominated by Atty. Alex Macalawi, the President of the same chapter.[20]

During the April 25, 2009 meeting for the nomination and election of the candidates for the Regional Governor of Western Mindanao, Atty. Macabangkit Lanto, an officer of the IBP-Lanao del Sur Chapter, informed the delegates that the Board of Officers of his Chapter––through a resolution signed by all its officers except for Chapter President Atty. Macalawi––officially nominated Lanto for Regional Governor of Western Mindanao.[21]

Despite said resolution, Macalawi nominated Marohomsalic for Regional Governor of Western Mindanao. The nomination of Marohomsalic was recognized and accepted by the presiding officer, outgoing Gov. Carlos L. Valdez Jr. Lanto and Marohomsalic each received five (5) votes after the votes were counted.[22]

On April 27, 2009, Lanto filed a Protest questioning Marohomsalic’s nomination and the counting of votes in his favor and claiming that under Section 6, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, only one nominee shall come from any IBP chapter. He asserted that the Chapter’s Board of Officers, not the Chapter President, by a majority vote shall determine the Chapter’s official nominee for Governor of its region.[23]

The Western Visayas Region Election Protest

(Atty. Cornelio P. Aldon and Atty. Benjamin

Ortega v. Atty. Erwin Fortunato)

Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the IBP-Romblon Chapter was proclaimed the duly-elected Regional Governor for Western Visayas in the April 25, 2009 elections.[24]

In separate protests, Atty. Cornelio P. Aldon of IBP-Antique Chapter and Atty. Benjamin Ortega of IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter claimed they were nominated by their respective chapters for Governor of Western Visayas but were not allowed to be elected on account of the “Rotation Rule” under Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP By-Laws.[25]

Despite their disqualification, Ortega obtained three (3) votes, Aldon obtained one (1) vote; and Fortunato, the eventual winner, obtained five (5) votes, with one (1) delegate opting to abstain.[26]

Aldon and Ortega argued that the rotation rule is merely directory and not mandatory and claimed a failure of elections, as nominees from the other chapters were disqualified.[27]

Resolution of the Protests

On April 28, 2009, pending Soriano’s Protest, Maramba took his oath as GMR Governor before Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Eugenio.[28]

On April 30, 2009, Soriano and his counsel, Atty. Salvador, and the respective counsels of Fortunato and Aldon appeared before the BOG for the hearing of their respective protests. Maramba and Marohomsalic did not appear or file any comment/opposition to the protests, despite due notice to them.[29]

On April 30, 2009, the BOG resolved the three (3) Protests, as follows:

Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-A-30 April 2009)

RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that the petition filed by Atty. Cornelio P. Aldon be DENIED and the election of Atty. Erwin Fortunato be UPHELD on the ground that he is rightfully entitled to be elected Governor of Western Visayas pursuant to the rotation rule as set forth under Section 39 of the IBP By-Laws;

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the protest of Atty. Benjamin Ortega, involving as it does identical issues and having been filed out of time, be likewise DISMISSED.

Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-B-30 April 2009)

RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that the protest filed by Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, be GRANTED for being meritorious and that the election of the IBP Greater Manila Region held on 25 April 2009 be declared as NULL and VOID.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that a new election for the IBP Governor for the Greater Manila Region be held on Monday, May 4, 2009, at 6:00 P.M. at the IBP National Office, Ortigas Center, Pasig City and that the Presiding Officer thereof be directed to follow the Resolution of the Board of Governors issued on April 23, 2009 on who can be properly designated as delegates by the Board of Officers of the Chapters;

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the Executive Vice President be directed to preside at the said election;

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the protestant, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, the protestee, Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, and the different Chapter Presidents of the Greater Manila Region be notified immediately about this Resolution and the holding of a new election aforestated.

Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-C-30 April 2009)

RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that the protest of Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto be GRANTED on the ground that the nomination of the protestee, Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic, was in contravention of the will of the Lanao Del Sur Chapter expressed thru Board Resolution No. 002, 2009.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the petitioner, Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto, be declared as the duly elected Governor of the Western Mindanao Region.[30]

The member-chapters of the GMR, namely Manila I, II, III, IV and Quezon City, were duly served copies of the above resolution by facsimile message and personal service.[31]

On May 4, 2009, the special election for the GMR Governor was held at the IBP National Office. On the other hand, President Bautista, Gov. Magsino, Atty. Maramba and others held a press conference in the morning of that same day questioning the special election and other actions taken by the BOG.[32]

During the special election, a total of fifteen (15), out of twenty-five (25) delegates from the five (5) GMR chapters (Manila I, Manila II, Manila III, Manila IV, and Quezon City), attended.[33]

Soriano was nominated by the IBP-QC Chapter, and was the sole nominee for the position of GMR Governor. After the casting of ballots and counting of votes, Soriano was declared the duly-elected GMR Governor, garnering a total of fifteen (15) votes.[34]

Election of the next IBP Executive Vice President (EVP)

After the special election for the GMR Governor, the BOG sent notices to IBP National President Bautista and both the incumbent and newly-elected members of the BOG regarding the election for the next IBP EVP on May 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. at the IBP Board Room. In the said election held on May 9, 2009, the following were present:

Incumbent members of the Board of Governors:

Rogelio A. Vinluan EVP and Governor for Southern Luzon

Abelardo C. Estrada Governor for Northern Luzon

Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. Governor for Bicolandia

Evergisto S. Escalon Governor for Eastern Visayas

Raymund Jorge A. Mercado Governor for Western Visayas

Newly-elected members of the Board of Governors:

Elpidio G. Soriano III Governor for GMR

Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr. Governor for Southern Luzon

Jose V. Cabrera Governor for Bicolandia

Erwin M. Fortunato Governor for Western Visayas

Roland B. Inting Governor for Eastern Visayas

Benjamin B. Lanto Governor for Western Mindanao

GMR Governor Soriano was the sole nominee for the position of IBP EVP. All the newly-elected members of the BOG in attendance unanimously voted for Soriano as the next IBP EVP and he was proclaimed as the new IBP EVP.[35]

On the other hand, National President Bautista presided over the meeting of the other group of Governors, consisting of the following:

Incumbent members of the Board of Governors:

Marcial M. Magsino Governor for GMR

Ramon Edison Batacan Governor for Eastern Mindanao

Carlos Valdez, Jr. Governor for Western Mindanao

Newly-elected members of the Board of Governors:

Manuel M. Maramba Governor for GMR

Ma. Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa Governor for Northern Luzon

Ferdinand Y. Miclat Governor for Central Luzon

Roan I. Libarios Governor for Eastern Mindanao

Nasser Marohomsalic Governor for Western Mindanao

In this meeting presided by Bautista, Atty. Roan Libarios was elected as the next IBP EVP.[36]

Thereafter, this Court received separate reports of Bautista and Vinluan regarding the election of the incoming IBP EVP.

Creation of the Special Committee

In its June 2, 2009 En Banc Resolution, this Court created a Special Committee to investigate the disputes relating to the elections for Governor of the GMR, Executive Vice-President of the IBP, and other IBP positions. Named to the Special Committee were Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino (retired) as Chairperson and Justices Bernardo P. Pardo and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. as Members.

The Special Committee conducted hearings and the parties adduced their respective evidence.[37]

Thereafter, the Special Committee submitted its Report and Recommendation dated July 2, 2009 to the Court, the fallo of which reads:

A. That to avoid further controversy regarding its proper interpretation and implementation, Sec. 31, Article V, of the By-Laws should be amended as follows (suggested amendments are in bold print):

SEC. 31. Membership. – The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of all the Chapter Presidents and in the case of Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice President of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice President is already a delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Additional Delegates and their respective alternates shall be elected from, and by, the Board of Officers of the Chapter. If the Delegate chosen is incapacitated, or disqualified, or resigns, or refuses to serve, and there are enough members of the Board to be elected as Delegates, then the Board of Officers shall elect the additional delegates and alternates from the general membership of the Chapter, and his corresponding alternate shall take his place.

B. That to avoid any ambiguity as to how the President shall preside and vote in the meetings of the House of Delgates, paragraph (g), Sec. 33, Article V of the By-Laws should be amended as follows:

(g) In all meetings and deliberations of the House, whether in annual or special convention, the President shall preside, or the Executive Vice President, if the President is absent or incapacitated, but neither of them shall vote except to break a tie.

C. Similarly, Sec. 42, Article VI of the By-Laws, on meetings of the Board of Governors, should be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 42. Meetings. – The Board shall meet regularly once a month, on such date and such time and place as it shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and shall be called by him upon written request of five (5) members of the Board. The President shall not vote except to break a tie in the voting. when for any reason, the President cannot preside on account of his absence, incapacity or refusal to call a meeting, the Executive Vice President shall preside, there being quorum to transact business, but he may not vote except to break a tie.

D. That Sec. 43, Article VI of the By-Laws, on the procedure for approving a resolution by the Board of Governors without a meeting, should be amended by adding the following exception thereto so that the procedure may not be abused in connection with any election in the IBP:

This provision shall not apply when the Board shall hold an election or hear and decide an election protest.

E. That the provision for the strict implementation of the rotation rule among the Chapters in the Regions for the election of the Governor for the regions, (as ordered by this Honorable Court in Bar Matter No. 586, May 14, 1991) should be incorporated in Sec. 39, Article VI of the By-Laws, as follows:

Sec. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. –At least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the Governor for the region, who shall be chosen by rotation which is mandatory and shall be strictly implemented among the Chapters in the region. When a Chapter waives its turn in the rotation order, its place shall redound to the next Chapter in the line. Nevertheless, the former may reclaim its right to the Governorship at any time before the rotation is completed; otherwise, it will have to wait for its turn in the next round, in the same place that it had in the round completed.

F. That in view of the fact that the IBP no longer elects its President, because the Executive Vice President automatically succeeds the President at the end of his term, Sec 47, Article VII of the By-Laws should be amended by deleting the provision for the election of the President, moreover, for the strict implementation of the rotation rule, the Committee recommends that there should be a sanction for its violation, thus:

Sec. 47. National Officers. – The integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President, and nine (9) regional Governors. The Executive Vice President shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of Governors from among themselves, by the vote of at least five (5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors.

The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election from election or appointment to any office of the IBP.

G. That Atty. Manuel M. Maramba should be declared the duly elected Governor of the Greater Manila Region for the 2009-2011 term.

H. That Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter should be declared the duly elected Governor of the Western Visayas Region for the 2009-2011 term.

(I.) That a special election should be held in the Western Mindanao Region, within fifteen (15) days from the notice, to elect the Governor of that region for the 2009-2011 term. In accordance with the rotation rule, only the six (6) Chapters in the region that have not yet been elected to the Board of Governors, namely: Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Za(m)boanga del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Misamis Occidental, and Maguindanao-Cotabato City, shall participate in the election.

J. That, thereafter, a special election should also be held by the Board of Governors to elect the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term with strict observance of the rotation rule. Inasmuch as for the past nine (9) terms, i.e., since the 1991-1993 term, the nominees of the Western Visayas and Eastern Mindanao Regions have not yet been chosen only between the nominees of these two (2) regions who shall become the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term, in accordance with the strict rotation rule.

K. That the high-handed and divisive tactics of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan and his group of Governors, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund Mercado, which disrupted the peaceful and orderly flow of business in the IBP, caused chaos in the National Office, bitter disagreements, and ill-feelings, and almost disintegrated the Integrated Bar, constituted grave professional misconduct which should be appropriately sanctioned discourage its repetition in the future.

In the meantime, the Court designated Justice Santiago M. Kapunan (retired) as Officer-in-Charge of the IBP, tasked with managing its day-to-day activities.

Issues to Be Resolved

1. What is the correct application of Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws?

2. Was the 30 April 2009 Resolution of the BOG, which resolved the protests filed by Atty. Soriano, Atty. Lanto, Atty. Aldon, and Atty. Ortega, valid?

3. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice President for the next term?

4. What is the liability, if any, of respondents Attys. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon and Raymond Mercado under the administrative complaint for “grave professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath, and acts inimical to the IBP” filed against them by Attys. Marcial Magsino, Manuel Maramba, and Nasser Marohomsalic?

As a backgrounder, allow me to explain the structure of the Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The IBP is divided into nine (9) regions: Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia, Greater Manila, Western Visayas, Eastern Visayas, Western Mindanao and Eastern Mindanao. Each of these regions is represented by a Governor elected by delegates from among the member-Chapters of each region. These nine Governors constitute the Board of Governors (BOG), which is the governing body of the IBP and has the general charge of its affairs and activities. Aside from the Governors, the other national officers of the IBP include: the National President, the Executive Vice-President (EVP), the National Secretary, the National Treasurer, and the heads of the National Committees.

The National President, the EVP and the Governors sit for a period of two (2) years, assume office on July 1 and serve until June 30 of their second year.

After their election to the Board, the members of the BOG elect from among themselves the new EVP, who shall automatically become the next IBP National President for the next term.

The National President is designated as the Chief Executive Officer of the IBP. He is tasked with presiding over all meetings of the BOG. On the other hand, the EVP shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the President during the absence or inability of the latter to act and shall perform such other functions and duties as are assigned to him by the President and the Board of Governors. The EVP is a voting member of the Board, since he is an incumbent Governor elected by and from among the Governors. Meanwhile, the BOG shall have general charge of the affairs and activities of the IBP.

The BOG holds a regular meeting once a month. However, special meetings may be called by the IBP National President and shall be called by him upon written request of five (5) members of the BOG. In the special meetings, five members of the BOG shall constitute a quorum to transact business. However, even without a meeting, the BOG is empowered to issue resolution as long as it is signed by at least five (5) members, with notice of the contents thereof to the other members of the BOG.

The BOG also decides on all election protests within the IBP. Their resolutions on protests are final and conclusive.

Having put the issues in the proper context, we now go to the merits of the protests and complaint.

Contrary to the fallo of the ponencia, the protests of Soriano and Lanto in A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC should be granted, while the protests of Aldon and Ortega should be dismissed for lack of merit. The complaint against Vinluan and others in A.C. No. 8292 should be dismissed likewise for lack of merit.

Additional Delegates Must Be Elected

by the IBP Chapter Board of Officers

The threshold issue is the conflicting positions on the correct meaning and application of Section 8, Article IV of the Chapter By-Laws and Sec. 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws.

Former National President Bautista and his group of IBP Governors contend that Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws should be interpreted to mean that in Chapters which are entitled to more than two delegates, the additional delegate(s) shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board, in consideration of their mandate from the general membership of the Chapter. This interpretation is expressed in the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the IBP BOG led by Bautista.

EVP Vinluan and his group of Governors contend otherwise, claiming that the April 17, 2009 Resolution is invalid for being substantially and procedurally flawed. They asseverate that the April 17, 2009 Resolution effectively amended the IBP By-Laws, an act which cannot be done without the approval of this Court. Thus, the BOG led by EVP Vinluan passed the April 23, 2009 Resolution, which recalled the April 17, 2009 Resolution.

I submit that the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG led by President Bautista is invalid.

On the basis of Loanzon’s letter seeking clarification of certain provisions of the IBP By-Laws, the BOG issued the April 17, 2009 Resolution, the pertinent portion is quoted as follows:

Resolution No. XVIII-2009-

This assailed resolution is invalid for the following reasons:

First, the provisions of the By-Laws are unequivocal and do not need any interpretation.

Section 39, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws provides for the nomination and election of the Governors, as follows:

Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. – At least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.

For purposes of the election of a Governor, the number, designation and election of the delegates are crucial. Thus, to reiterate, Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws provide, as follows:

These provisions say that the additional delegates and alternates shall be elected by the Chapter Board of Officers. The only restriction is the requirement that the Chapter President and the Vice President are automatically Delegates in Chapters which are entitled to two (2) delegates. If a Chapter is entitled to more than two delegates, the additional delegates shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter, not necessarily from among the members of the Board. The phrase “in proper cases” means if the Chapter is entitled to two (2) delegates, then the President and Vice-President are mandatorily delegates and the alternate delegate shall be elected by the Chapter Board of Officers. In case the Chapter is entitled to three (3) delegates, then the first two (2) delegates shall be the Chapter President and Vice-President, and the third regular delegate shall be elected by the Chapter Board of Officers from the members of the Chapter, and so on.

The interpretation that the other elected Board Members and Officers of the Chapter are automatically delegates has no basis at all from the challenged By-Laws. There is nothing in said By-Laws to imply such strained construction.

Second, this absence of a restriction enveloped in the clear wordings of the By-Laws is consistent with the autonomy granted to the Chapters with respect to their chapter-activities.

By imposing an additional requirement that all delegates should be Chapter Officers, the BOG clearly weakened the authority of the local chapters to freely elect their additional delegates. The operative term in Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws is to “elect” the delegates. Logic dictates that if it were the intention to limit the delegates to the officers of a particular chapter, then the IBP By-Laws should not have given the chapters the freedom to “elect” their delegates. It would be an exercise in futility to hold an election if the same would be limited to the officers of the chapters. The IBP Rules should have simply stated that the additional Delegates should be the members of the Board of each chapter, or that the members of the Board automatically become Delegates.

The IBP By-Laws created local chapters having in mind the autonomy of its own government within its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, Section 28, Article IV and Section 5 of the Chapter By-Laws provide:

Section 28. Chapter Local Government. – Each Chapter shall have its own government.

Section 5. Board of Officers. – The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a Public Relations Officer and five Directors, who shall be elected at the biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two years from the first day of April next following their election and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified.

While the chapters are under the general direction and supervision of the BOG as provided in Section 1 of the Chapter By-Laws, each Chapter has the power to administer the affairs of the Integrated Bar within its territorial jurisdiction. To enforce this, the Chapters were expressly given the powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities under Section 3 of Article I of the IBP By-Laws, to wit:

Section 3. Powers, Prerogatives, Functions, Duties And Responsibilities. – The powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities, of the Integrated Bar, its Chapters and other agencies, its officers and committees, national and local, its commissions, and its members, are as provided by law, the Integration Rule, Presidential Decree No. 181, these By-Laws, and pertinent rules and regulations.

The abovementioned powers of the Chapters are exercised by their respective Boards with full discretion and without restriction, save for the minimum requirement of the Integration Rule that a member must first be in good standing to avail of its membership privileges. To impose an additional requirement, such as the one provided under the April 17, 2009 Resolution, would be to restrict the authority of the Board of Officers to freely elect the additional and alternate Delegates of their respective Chapters.

Third, to impose that only Chapter Officers may be Delegates is illogical given the basic and essential differences between the functions of a Chapter Officer and a Member of the House of Delegates.

Thus, I find the submission of the proponents of the April 17, 2009 Resolution that the Board of Officers of a particular Chapter should be Delegates because they enjoy the mandate of general membership having been elected to their respective positions, illogical and without legal basis.

With this, I would like to emphasize the difference between a Delegate and a Chapter Officer pursuant to the different functions given them under the IBP By-Laws.

On one hand, Chapter Officers constitute the governing body of a Chapter, as set forth in Section 5 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV, as follows:

Sec. 5. Board of Officers. – The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a Public Relations Officer and five Directors, who shall be elected at the biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two years from the first day of April next following their election and until their successor shall have been duly chosen and qualified. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668)

In addition to the elected officers, the immediate Past-President shall ipso facto become an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Board of Directors. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1049)

The President and Vice President shall be chairman and vice chairman, respectively.

Chapter Officers are also elected at large by the general membership of the Chapter. This is clearly provided under Section 12 (a) and (c) on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV, as follows:

Sec. 12. Rules governing elections. – The following rules shall govern elections:

Date and place of elections. – Elections of Officers and Directors shall be held on the last Saturday of February every other year at such time and place as the Board shall designate, which shall be stated in the notice to be sent to every member by personal delivery or by mail not less than thirty days prior to the elections.

x x x x

Voters’ list. – Not earlier than twenty-five days nor later than fifteen days prior to the elections, the Secretary shall submit to the Board of Officers a list of the names of all the members entitled to vote. The voters’ list shall then remain closed and shall not be altered except upon direction of the Board. However, it shall be open to inspection by all members, and, upon request, copies thereof shall be furnished to any member upon payment of actual cost.

Any member who is delinquent in the payment of dues or any assessment, including surcharges owing, twenty-five days prior to the day of the elections, shall be excluded from the voters’ list.

On the other hand, Delegates compose the House of Delegates which acts under Section 33(f) of Article V of the IBP By-Laws. It is the IBP’s deliberative body whose resolutions bind the Integrated Bar when concurred in by the BOG. Under Section 36 of the same Article, Delegates have a separate duty from that of a Chapter Officer, to wit:

Sec. 36. Duties of Delegates. – The Delegates shall attend every convention of the House, promote the work of the convention and make reports of the proceedings thereof to their respective Chapters.

Also, for the purpose of electing Regional Governors, the IBP By-Laws designates Chapter Presidents and Vice Presidents as members of the House of Delegates, while additional Delegates are elected by the Board of Officers of a Chapter, as clearly stated in Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws, which is again quoted below:

Furthermore, Article V of the IBP By-Laws provides a term of office for a Delegate, thus:

Section 32. Term of Office. – The term of office of additional and alternate Delegates shall be coterminous with that of the Chapter Delegates.

A study of the abovementioned provisions would show that if the intention of the IBP By-Laws were to limit the position of a Delegate to only the incumbent Chapter, then there would no longer be a need to provide for a separate term of office for “additional and alternate delegates” under Section 32, Article V of the IBP By-Laws. This is due to the fact that a Chapter Officer’s term of office would coincide with that of the “Chapter Delegates,” which in this case are the President and/or the Vice President of a Chapter.

Fourth, consistent with the foregoing arguments and gleaned from the records of this case, [38] it has been the practice of the IBP House of Delegates, since its inception in 1973, to allow members who are not officers of their respective chapters, to wit:

SUMMARY OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES

WHO ARE NOT OFFICERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CHAPTERS

TERM OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES

NAME OF DELEGATE

CHAPTER

1973-1974

Atty. Alexander Castro

Atty. Abelardo Subido

Atty. Cirilo Asperilla

Pangasinan

Manila IV

1975-1977

Atty. Francisco Santiago

Atty. Pablo Garcia

Atty. Angel Purisima

Atty. Gonzalo River

Rizal

Cebu City

Manila IV

1977-1979

Atty. Jose Balajadia

Atty. Ponciano Mortera

Rizal

Quezon City

1979-1981

No records were made available

1981-1983

1983-1985

Atty. Teodoro Regino

Atty. Gines Abellana

Atty. Leoncio Mercado

Atty. Ponciano Mortera

Pangasinan

Cebu City

Manila II

Quezon City

1985-1987

No records were made available

1987-1989

1989-1991

No records were made available

1991-1993

1993-1995

1995-1997

Atty. Oscar Fernandez

Atty. Ma. Elena Francisco

Atty. Yolando Lim

Atty. Antonio Abad, Jr.

Atty. Teresita Oledan

Pangasinan

Manila II

Manila IV

Quezon City

1997-1999

Atty. Hermogenes Decano

Pangasinan

1999-2001

No records were made available

2001-2003

Atty. Ma. Victoria Cabrera

Atty. Gines Abellana

Pangasinan

Cebu City

2003-2005

Atty. Nicasio Templanza

Atty. Napoleon Espiritu

Manila IV

2005-2007

Atty. Hermogenes Decano

Atty. Nestor Nuez

Pangasinan

Cebu City

2007-2009

Atty. Baltazar Servito

Atty. Bienvenido Somera, Jr.

Atty. Grace Quevendo-Panagsagan

Atty. Democrito Barcenas

Pangasinan

Makati City

Cebu City

The table displayed above confirms the practice of the IBP House of Delegates to allow the participation of non-officers of the different Chapters in its proceedings. I further note that this practice has been prevalent among some Chapters of the Greater Manila Region itself, among them Quezon City, where one of whose officers oddly enough instituted this quandary. As the provisions of the By-Laws have in fact been accepted and practiced by the IBP since 1973, I cannot find a reason to detract from the same.

Fifth, the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG constitutes an introduction of an amendment to the IBP By-Laws.

By requiring that only “duly elected officers” of a Chapter are to be elected as additional delegates, the April 17, 2009 Resolution effectively imposed an additional qualification on the delegates of a Chapter. Indeed, a “deliberate selection of language other than that used in an earlier act is indicative that a change in the law was intended.”[39]

Therefore, since the April 17, 2009 Resolution is an amendment to the IBP By-Laws, it must be approved by this Court, as required by Section 17 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 77 of the IBP By-Laws, which state, as follows:

Section 17. Amendments. – These by-laws may be amended by the Board of Governors with the approval of the Supreme Court.

The rules and regulations which may be adopted by the Chapter under the authority of Section 29 (Uniform by-laws) of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar may be amended by the vote of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting called for the purpose, subject to the approval of the Board of Governors.

Section 77. Amendments. – These By-Laws may be amended, modified or repealed by the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors.

A perusal of the wordings of these provisions shows that the approval of the Supreme Court is mandatory whenever amendments are introduced by the BOG. In fact, Sections 17 and 77 demonstrate that the power of the BOG to amend the IBP By-Laws is merely recommendatory, since the Supreme Court has the power to “amend, modify or repeal” and finally approve the amendments to the By-Laws motu proprio.

Thus, the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG, being an amendment to the IBP By-Laws, is ineffective and should not have been used in the April 25, 2009 elections since it was not approved by this Court.

Validity of the April 23, 2009 Resolution of the BOG

As discussed, the BOG voted to recall and set aside its April 17, 2009 Resolution thru its April 23, 2009 Resolution, which provides that:

After carefully studying the Report and Recommendation of the Special Committee and the arguments of the parties to this case, I find that the April 23, 2009 Resolution of the BOG is valid.

In general, for the BOG to carry out its business, Section 6, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court provides, among other things:

Section 6. Board of Governors. – x x x.

The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date at such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of all the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special meetings may be called by the President or by five members of the Board. x x x

Similarly, Section 43, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws provides:

Section 43. Quorum. – Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to transact business. However, the Board may take action, without a meeting, by resolution signed by at least five governors, provided that every member of the Board shall have been previously apprised of the contents of the resolution.

Lastly, Section 37, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws plainly states that the BOG is the governing body of the IBP, as follows:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. – The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from the region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the Region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 491)

Based on the above-quoted provisions and the facts of this case, there is no question that a quorum was formed and present when Governors Vinluan, Estrada, Barandon, Escalon and Mercado passed the April 23, 2009 Resolution. Proceeding from this, I can also conclude that a majority of the BOG in fact voted and approved said Resolution. Thus, the April 23, 2009 Resolution was validly issued pursuant to the requirements under the Rules of Court and the IBP By-Laws.

On the other hand, the Memorandum issued on April 24, 2009 by the incumbent IBP National President, Atty. Bautista, wherein he stated that the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG should be the one followed for purposes of the election of the new Governors, cannot be given any effect. Clearly, nothing in the IBP By-Laws granted authority upon the IBP National President to overrule the valid actions of the IBP BOG.

In fact, as provided for under Section 50(a), Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, the duties of the IBP National President are to primarily act as the chief executive of the IBP and to preside at all meetings of the BOG. Thus:

Section 50. Duties of Officers. – (a) President: The President shall be the chief executive of the Integrated Bar, and shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Governors.

From assumption of office and for the duration of his term, the President shall dissociate himself from any and all activities that may, in one way or another, restrict or hamper the effective exercise of his powers and performance of his functions and duties.

Therefore, Atty. Bautista cannot, in his capacity as IBP National President, set aside or render null and void any lawful resolution of the BOG, simply because he was not given any power to do so. Being the IBP President, he merely executes the lawful resolutions and actions of the BOG, which is the entity vested with the power and authority to act as the governing board in charge of the affairs of the Integrated Bar.

Anent the argument that the recall of the April 17, 2009 Resolution was not validly done since the recall of a Resolution needs the 3/4 vote of the BOG, I find the argument to be without merit.

Nothing in the IBP By-Laws requires a 3/4 vote of the BOG for the approval of a recall of its previous Resolutions. Indeed, the “3/4 vote” argument is without legal basis.

With regard to the contention that Gov. Vinluan, as the EVP of the IBP, lost his right to vote when he assumed the post of Presiding Officer during the April 23, 2009 meeting, I find the same to be without merit.

Unlike the IBP National President, an EVP is chosen by and from among the nine (9) Regional Governors who have been duly elected by the respective regions’ Delegates. Like the other Regional Governors, the EVP has the right to vote in the proceedings of the BOG. Nothing in the IBP By-Laws indicates the loss of an EVP’s right to vote when he presides over a meeting. Therefore, even if the EVP presides over the meeting of the IBP BOG, he remains to be a Governor, unlike the President, and is entitled to vote as a Governor on matters within the authority of the IBP BOG.

Moreover, the special meeting held on April 23, 2009 called for by Governors Vinluan, Estrada, Barandon, Escalon and Mercado to discuss the April 17, 2009 Resolution was done in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court which provides that “special meetings may be called by the President or by five members of the Board.”

Also, Section 50(b), Article VII of the IBP By-Laws states:

Section 50. Duties of officers. – x x x.

(b) Executive Vice President: The Executive Vice President shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the President during the absence or inability of the latter to act, and shall perform such other functions and duties as are assigned to him by the President and the Board of Governors.

Based on this provision, EVP Vinluan’s act of presiding over the special meeting held on April 23, 2009 was validly and legally made, since the IBP National President, Atty. Bautista, was absent. Hence, the absence of Atty. Bautista during the special meeting does not invalidate its proceedings.

Furthermore, the April 23, 2009 Resolution enjoys a disputable presumption of validity.

The Court, in Velez v. De Vera, ruled:[40]

It should be noted that the general charge of the affairs and activities of the IBP has been vested in the Board of Governors. The members of the Board are elective and representative of each of the nine regions of the IBP as delineated in its By-Laws. The Board acts as a collegiate body and decides in accordance with the will of the majority. The foregoing rules serve to negate the possibility of the IBP Board acting on the basis of personal interest or malice of its individual members. Hence, the actions and resolutions of the IBP Board deserve to be accorded the disputable presumption of validity, which shall continue, until and unless it is overcome by substantial evidence and actually declared invalid by the Supreme Court. In the absence of any allegation and substantial proof that the IBP Board has acted without or in excess of its authority or with grave abuse of discretion, we shall not be persuaded to overturn and set aside the Board’s action or resolution.

Thus, it is the BOG, not the IBP National President, which has general charge of the affairs of the IBP. Besides, the BOG acts as a collegial body and decides in accordance with the will of the majority. In relation to the instant controversy, no evidence was provided to show the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the five (5) Governors in passing the April 23, 2009 Resolution. Also, the special meeting was called by the majority of the BOG due to the refusal of Atty. Bautista to call the meeting despite the request of the majority of the BOG. Thus, Governors Vinluan, Estrada, Barandon, Escalon and Mercado merely exercised the available administrative remedies provided by both the Rules of Court under Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws. Resort to the Court was not necessary in view of said available administrative remedies. As clearly stated in Velez:[41]

x x x [T]he effectiveness of the IBP, like any other organization, is diluted if the conflicts are brought outside its governing body for then there would be the impression that the IBP, which speaks through the Board of Governors, does not and cannot speak for its members in an authoritative fashion. It would accordingly diminish the IBP’s prestige and repute with the lawyers as well as with the general public.

As a means of self-preservation, internecine conflicts must thus be adjusted within the governing board itself so as to free it from the stresses that invariably arise when internal cleavages are made public.

The doctrine of majority rule is almost universally used as a mechanism for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements within the group after the members have been given an opportunity to be heard. While it does not efface conflicts, nonetheless, once a decision on a contentious matter is reached by a majority vote, the dissenting minority is bound thereby so that the board can speak with one voice, for those elected to the governing board are deemed to implicitly contract that the will of the majority shall govern in matters within the authority of the board.

Indeed, the April 23, 2009 Resolution of the IBP BOG was made in compliance with the Rules of Court and the IBP By-Laws.

In view of all the foregoing, Section 8 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws should be applied as it is. Accordingly, in cases where IBP Chapters are entitled to more than two delegates as provided under Section 8, Chapter By-Laws of Article IV and Section 31, Article V of the By-Laws of the IBP, the additional delegate(s) shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter not only from among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board but also from other members as well.

Was the April 30, 2009 Resolution of the BOG, which resolved the protests filed by Atty. Soriano, Atty. Lanto, Atty. Aldon, and Atty. Ortega, valid?

Section 40 of the IBP By-Laws provides that the jurisdiction to hear and decide all protests concerning elections in the IBP is vested with the Board of Governors, to wit:

Section 40. Election contests. - Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall, within two days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the President of the Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the following May 31 and shall be final and conclusive.

Under the same provision, the IBP National President is mandated to call a special meeting of the IBP BOG upon receipt of election protests. When Soriano, Lanto, Aldon, and Ortega filed their respective election protests with the IBP, Atty. Bautista failed to call a special meeting. Instead, he ordered the protestees and protestants to file their respective comments and replies. After the parties’ compliance with his order, he would direct the national secretary to issue a notice of special meeting of the Board after five (5) days from the time all the pleadings have been filed. This was done despite the fact that the election for EVP was scheduled on May 9, 2009 or thirteen (13) days after the protests were filed.

In view of the refusal of Atty. Bautista to call a special meeting regarding the election protest, Atty. Vinluan and his group of Governors called for the special meeting themselves. On April 28, 2009, Atty. Jaime Vibar, acting upon instructions of the BOG, sent notices to all parties to the protests, namely: Atty. Benjamin Lanto, Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, Atty. Manuel Maramba, Atty. Cornelio P. Aldon, and Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato. The parties were instructed to be present at the hearing that would be conducted on April 30, 2009 and to submit whatever comment or opposition they may deem proper. Copies of the notice were likewise sent to the IBP National President and the other governors: Ernesto A. Gonzales, Marcial Magsino, Ramon Edison Batacan, and Carlos Valdez, through the staff facilities of the IBP.[42] All notices were duly received by the parties. The proceeding for the hearing and the BOG’s deliberations were thereafter conducted on the same day.[43]

Considering that the parties were duly notified and given the opportunity to present their respective positions on the protest, I find nothing irregular with the actions of the BOG in calling for a special meeting on the election protests.

The actuations of the BOG in setting the protests for hearing on April 30, 2009 are logical under the circumstances. I note that the election of the next EVP of the IBP was slated on May 9, 2009. Time was of the essence to resolve the protests in order to proceed with the election of the next EVP of the IBP. Thus, it was necessary to hold the election prior to the EVP elections, since duly-elected Governors are required to validly conduct the election of the next EVP of the IBP within their rank. Considering further that since nobody among the parties of these cases even endeavored to move the schedule of the election of the next EVP of the IBP to another date to provide more time to resolve the election protests, then it was necessary to resolve the protests prior to the pre-determined EVP election date. The BOG in this case was hard pressed to move forward, in accordance with the IBP Rules on notices and voting, because they were not given much leeway to resolve the possible impasse.

As to who were validly elected Governor for Western Visayas, Greater Manila, and Western Mindanao Regions, I shall discuss the rulings of the BOG in seriatim.

Prefatorily, it bears stressing that the decisions made by the BOG regarding election protests are final and conclusive. The Court held in Parlade v. Board of Governors:[44]

As correctly observed by the respondents, the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final (Sec. 13, IBP By-Laws). And one of the governing principles in the integration of the bar is “maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, I shall discuss the issues on the election of the Governors for the three aforementioned regions due to their paramount significance.

Western Visayas Region Protest

The election of Fortunato as Governor for the Western Visayas Region was upheld by the BOG since he obtained the highest number of votes among the three candidates for the position; and under the rotation rule, it is now the turn of the Romblon Chapter to represent the Western Visayas Region in the IBP Board of Governors. The Special Committee, in its Report and Recommendation, concurred with the BOG.

I agree with the said ruling.

Again, Section 37 of the IBP By-Laws provides:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from the region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the Region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).

The above section applicable to the selection of Governors for the regions is mandatory. As correctly pointed out during the hearing, the mandatory nature of the “rotation rule” under Section 37 was necessary to give a chance to every chapter to have at least a governor at some time.

Considering that the only remaining chapter in the Western Visayas Region that has not yet had a Governor is Romblon and that since Fortunato obtained the highest number of votes among the three candidates for the position, then Fortunato should be the validly elected Governor for Western Visayas.

Greater Manila Region Protest

With respect to the protest filed by Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, the BOG granted the protest and declared the election of the IBP Greater Manila Region held on April 25, 2009 as null and void. Thereafter, new elections were ordered to be held on May 4, 2009.

Having earlier passed upon the non-validity of the April 17, 2009 Resolution of the BOG, I now consider the validity of the April 25, 2009 election for the Greater Manila Region. Specifically, I shall focus on the validity of the votes cast by the delegates from the Quezon City Chapter.

It is not disputed that of the eleven (11) delegates from Quezon City Chapter, two (2) are automatic delegates and nine (9) are additional delegates. From among those who were allowed to cast their votes, two (2) were not elected by the QC Board of Officers: Atty. Victoria Loanzon and Atty. Iris Laqui. Unfortunately for Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui, neither of them holds the position of either President or Vice-President of the Chapter and, thus, cannot be considered as an automatic delegate. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 31, Article V of the IBP By-Laws, Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui need to be elected by the Board of Officers to qualify as additional delegates.

Per Board Resolution 09-007 of the IBP-QC Chapter, neither Atty. Loanzon nor Atty. Laqui was an official delegate duly elected by the Board and should not have been allowed by Presiding Officer Atty. Marcial Magsino to cast their votes. The BOG then ruled correctly in ordering elections for the GMR to be held anew, since the declaration of Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui as Delegates of the IBP-QC Chapter is material in deciding the tight race between Atty. Elpidio Soriano III and Atty. Manuel Maramba.

On the argument that Atty. Soriano cannot be elected as GMR Governor by virtue of the “rotation rule,” the same lacks merit.

For clarity, I quote again Section 37, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from the region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the Region. (As amended by Bar Matter 491)

Based on the records turned over to the Special Committee, the following has been the rotation of the Governors for GMR within the chapters comprising the region:

Term Chapter Governor

2007-2009 Manila IV Atty. Marcial Magsino

2005-2007 Manila I Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal

2003-2005 Manila II Atty. Rosario Setias-Reyes

2001-2003 Quezon City Atty. Santos Catubay Jr.

1999-2001 Manila III Atty. Jose Icaonapo Jr.

1997-1999 Manila I Atty. Jacinto Formes

1995-1997 Manila III Atty. Amy Wong

2/1994 - 6/1995 Manila III Atty. Amy Wong

7/1993 - 2/1994 Manila II Atty. Gonzalo Santos, Jr.

1991-1993 Quezon City Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto

1989-1991 Manila IV Atty. Yolanda Q. Javellana

During the hearings before the Special Committee, it was submitted that since the cycle of the rotation from 1999-2009 had already been completed, the next GMR Governor should come from the Manila III Chapter because in the previous cycle, the first Governor was a member of the Manila III Chapter.

This contention is untenable.

An analysis of the history of the “rotation rule” would show that when the “rotation rule” was ordained by Bar Matter No. 491 in 1989, for the GMR, the first GMR Governor for the term 1989-1991 was Atty. Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana who came from the Manila IV Chapter.

This shows that in the cycle prior to when Manila III (Jose Icaonapo, Jr.) was first elected as the GMR Governor, the first GMR Governor actually came from Manila IV (Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana). This clearly negates the theory that each cycle must start with Manila III. Besides, the contention renders nugatory the necessity of electing Governors. If the rotation rule were implemented as such, there would be no need to conduct elections. The Chapters would simply wait for their turn every time a new cycle commences. This would unduly restrict the discretion of the Chapters (as well as the individual nominees) to field and choose their next Governor whose responsibilities are neither miniscule nor trivial. The “rotation rule” is meant to ensure an equitable sharing of responsibility in the professional organization. It is not intended to shackle the IBP or to reduce its Chapters into automatons.

Thus, the “rotation rule” should mean that once a member of a Chapter is elected Governor, the said Chapter is excluded and becomes ineligible to have another member elected as Governor until all the other Chapters in the region have had a chance to elect a Governor from among its members. The series of exclusions takes place at each election until the cycle of rotation among all the Chapters is concluded. After all the Chapters have had their respective Governors elected, then the Governor-slate is wiped clean. Thereafter, the second rotation cycle begins and all the Chapters are once again eligible to have one of their members elected as Governor. Once a Chapter has its member elected as Governor, it is again excluded from having another member elected as Governor until all the other Chapters in the region have had a chance to elect a governor in the second cycle, and so on.

Considering that in the last cycle, all the five (5) chapters in the Greater Manila Region had already elected a Governor, the cycle began anew in 2009 and any of the Chapters could field a candidate. In view thereof, Atty. Soriano is not disqualified to be elected as GMR Governor under the “rotation rule.”

As I have discussed the reason for holding as void the election of the IBP Greater Manila Region held on April 25, 2009, I now delve into the validity of the election of Atty. Soriano for the position of Governor for GMR on May 4, 2009.

Records[45] show that after the BOG resolved all the individual protests on April 30, 2009, the concerned parties and the various Chapters of GMR were notified of the special election to be held on May 4, 2009.

Atty. Vinluan presided over the said special election for the Governor of GMR pursuant to the April 30, 2009 Resolution of the BOG. A total of fifteen (15), out of twenty-five (25), delegates from the five (5) chapters comprising the GMR attended. Soriano was the sole nominee for the position of GMR Governor. After the casting of ballots and counting of votes, Soriano was declared the duly-elected GMR Governor, garnering a total of fifteen (15) votes.

In assailing the validity of the said proceedings, Atty. Magsino argues that it was irregular for EVP Vinluan to have presided over the special election of the GMR Governor on May 4, 2009, since he alone, being the incumbent GMR Governor, has the authority to call and preside over the election of the next GMR Governor.

This argument, however, is bereft of any merit.

Section 39, Article VI of the By-Laws provides:

Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. - At least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).

A study of Section 9, Article VI of the By-Laws shows that there is no explicit rule as to who shall preside in the election of Regional Governors. By tradition, however, the incumbent Governor of a particular region acts as the Presiding Officer for the election of the Governor of his or her region.

Meanwhile, Section 41, Article VI of the IBP By-Laws provides the functions of the BOG, to wit:

Section 41. Functions of the Board. - The Board of Governors shall have general charge of the affairs and activities of the Integrated Bar. It shall have authority, inter alia, to:

(a) Fix the date, time and place of every convention of the House of Delegates, subject to the provisions of Sections 33 (Annual convention) and 34 (Special conventions);

(b) Make appropriations and authorize disbursements from the funds of the Integrated Bar, subject to the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Integration Rule and Section 5 (Positions honorary) of these By-Laws;

(d) Receive, consider and act on reports and recommendations submitted by the House of Delegates or its committees;

(e) Provide for the publication of the Journal of the Integrated Bar;

(f) Administer the Welfare Fund in accordance with such rules and regulations as it may promulgate;

(g) Fill vacancies, however arising in the positions of officers of the Integrated Bar, subject to the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Integration Rule, and Section 11 (Vacancies), Section 44 (Removal of members), Section 47 (National officers), Section 48 (Other officers), and Section 49 (Terms of office) of these By-Laws;

(h) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for all members of the Integrated Bar;

(i) Promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of lawyer referral services throughout the Philippines;

(j) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, impose special assessments for specific national purposes, and impose, or recommend in proper cases to the Court the imposition of, sanctions for non-payment or delinquency in the payment thereof;

(k) Prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of the Integration Rule and Presidential Decree No. 181; and

(l) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of the Integrated Bar.

As to the duties of individual Governors, Section 50(c), Article VII of the IBP By-Laws provides:

Section 50. Duties of officers. – x x x.

(c) Governors: In addition to his duties as a member of the Board of Governors, each elective Governor shall act as representative of his Region in the Board. He shall promote, coordinate and correlate activities of the Chapters within his Region.

Again, a careful reading of these two (2) provisions would show that there is no rule which states that the Regional Governors must call and preside over the election of the incoming Governors of their respective regions.

Therefore, Atty. Magsino’s claim that he is the only one authorized to call and preside over the election of the GMR Governor has no legal basis. Also, it must be remembered that the special election on May 4, 2009 was brought about by a resolution of Atty. Soriano’s protest by the BOG, which is final and conclusive; hence, the act of Atty. Vinluan in presiding over the said special election is not irregular or illegal.

Western Mindanao Protest

As ruled by the BOG on April 30, 2009, the petition of Lanto was granted and he was declared as the duly elected Governor for Western Mindanao.

I agree with the ruling of the BOG on April 30, 2009.

The main issue raised by Lanto in his protest is the validity of the nomination of Marohomsalic.

Section 6 of Rule 139-A provides that:

Sec. 6. Board of Governors. – The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors. Nine governors shall be elected by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice-President, chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto become members of the Board.

A perusal of the said provision would show that there should only be one (1) nominee for Governor for each Chapter.

Section 5 of the Chapter By-Laws provides that:

Sec. 5. Board of Officers. – The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice-President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a Public Relations Officer and five Directors, who shall be elected at the biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two (2) years from the first day of April next following their election and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. x x x

Meanwhile, Section 7 of the Chapter By-Laws provides that:

Sec. 7. Duties of officers.

(a) President. – The President shall be the chief executive of the Chapter. He shall preside at all chapter meetings and at all meetings of the Board of Officers. x x x

A comparison of these two provisions would show that the will of a Chapter is manifested through the acts of the Board of Officers as a collegial body.

Thus, the Chapter resolution which was jointly passed last February 28, 2009 by both the outgoing and incoming Board of Officers of Lanao del Sur Chapter and which also designated Lanto as the official nominee of the Chapter for Governor prevails over the nomination of Atty. Marohomsalic by the Chapter President, Macalawi.

Neither is Lanto disqualified under the “rotation rule” for the position of Western Mindanao Governor.

While the Special Committee points out that six (6) chapters in the region, including Sarangani, are entitled to precedence over the Lanao Del Sur Chapter in the order of rotation, the fact remains that not one of them nominated a candidate from their respective ranks during the April 25, 2009 election. Neither did any one of them challenge the nominations of the Lanao Del Sur Chapter based on the order of rotation. Thus, the six (6) chapters in the region that are entitled to precedence over the Lanao Del Sur Chapter in the order of rotation are deemed to have waived their turn in the rotation order.

Who was validly elected IBP EVP for the next term?

In accordance with Section 43 of the By-Laws, the BOG passed a Resolution recognizing the duly-elected Governors of the various regions of the IBP. Thereafter, a call for the election of the next IBP Executive Vice President would follow.

Considering that the May 4, 2009 election wherein Soriano won the seat of GMR Governor is valid, it follows that he is entitled to vote and be voted for in the May 9, 2009 election of the Executive Vice President. Also, since the records[46] disclose that Soriano was unanimously voted by all six (6) newly-elected members of the Board of Governors on May 9, 2010, there is no question that his election to the position of IBP Executive Vice President is legally binding.

In contrast, the election of Atty. Roan I. Libarios as IBP Executive Vice President, which was conducted on the same date, is invalid. Apart from the assailed validity of its proceedings, he was voted upon to such position by only three (3) newly-elected Governors, as Marohomsalic and Maramba were not the duly elected Governors of their respective regions, and their votes cannot be considered.

I also disagree with the finding of the Special Committee that the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern Mindanao regions are the only ones qualified to be elected as Executive Vice President for the term 2009-2011. Contrary to the said finding, all the nine (9) regions of the IBP have already produced an Executive Vice President. As held by this Court in Velez:[47]

In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. Thus, the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the Presidency. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws.

In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation was completed. It is only unfortunate that the supervening event of Atty. de Vera’s removal as IBP Governor and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP Presidency. The fact remains, however, that the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. de Vera to the IBP Presidency

Thus, after the election of Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar as EVP and eventually, as IBP President for the term 2005-2007, the rotation of all the nine regions of the IBP had been completed. A new rotation cycle commenced for the term 2007-2009.

It is also my opinion that the Special Committee’s finding that Eastern Mindanao has not had its turn of having an Executive Vice President of the IBP is erroneous. In A.M. No. 07-3-13-SC, entitled In Re: Compliance of IBP Chapters with Adm. Order No. 16-2007, Letter-Compliance of Atty. Ramon Edison C. Batacan,[48] the Court held:

There is no merit to Atty. Batacan’s claim that in view of the removal of Atty. Leonardo de Vera, IBP Eastern Mindanao Region was denied meaningful participation.

In Velez, the Court held that “the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. De Vera to the IBP Presidency.” Atty. De Vera’s removal from the position of EVP took place on the twenty-third month of his term for 2003 to 2005. Only a month short of completing his term, it is clear that he had effectively exercised the functions of an EVP as representative of the IBP Eastern Mindanao Region.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Special Committee, the Eastern Mindanao region already had its turn of having an EVP representative in the person of Atty. Leonard De Vera, who served as EVP for 23 months during the term 2005-2007.

In light of the foregoing, for the term 2009-2011, all Regional Governors, except that of Central Luzon,[49] are qualified to run for the post of Executive Vice President.

What is the liability, if any, of respondents Attys. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon and Raymond Mercado if guilty of “grave professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath, and acts inimical to the IBP”?

Having shown that the acts of Atty. Vinluan and the four other members of the BOG were in accordance with the IBP By-Laws, I see no reason to hold them liable for grave misconduct, violation of their oath as lawyers, and for committing acts inimical to the interest of the IBP. As a matter of fact, respondent Attys. Vinluan, Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado have always followed to the letter, the relevant provisions of the IBP By-Laws.

But the same cannot be said with regard to the actions taken by Atty. Bautista and his group, which also includes his co-complainants, Atty. Manuel Maramba and Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic. The evidence clearly shows that Atty. Bautista’s actuations produced conflict among the leaders and members of the IBP.

One last point. The complainants failed to clearly show that the respondents were motivated by ulterior motives in committing the acts alleged to be violative of their oath as members of the legal profession. As held in Arboleda v. Gatchalian:[50]

x x x [I]n disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers. The corrupt character of the act must be clearly demonstrated. Moreover, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, We have consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of either penalty.

A difference in opinion as to the proper interpretation of a provision in the Rules or the IBP By-Laws should never be used as a ground to charge another member of the legal profession for unethical conduct.

As a result, the administrative complaint filed against Attys. Vinluan, Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado should be dismissed for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, I recommend that this Court RULE and UPHOLD the following:

1. The proclamation of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III as the duly-elected Governor for the Greater Manila Region of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2009-2011;

2. The proclamation of Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto as the duly-elected Governor for the Western Mindanao Region of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2009-2011;

3. The proclamation of Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato as the duly-elected Governor for the Western Visayas Region of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2009-2011;

4. The May 6, 2009 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors recognizing the following as the duly-elected Regional Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2009-2011:

a. Northern Luzon - Atty. Ma. Milagros F. Cayosa

b. Central Luzon - Atty. Ferdinand Y. Miclat

c. Southern Luzon - Atty. Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr.

d. Greater Manila Region - Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III

e. Bicolandia - Atty. Jose V. Cabrera

f. Western Visayas - Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato

g. Eastern Visayas - Atty. Roland B. Inting

h. Eastern Mindanao - Atty. Roan I. Libarios

i. Western Mindanao - Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto

5. The proclamation by the IBP Board of Governors in the May 9, 2009 election of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III as the duly-elected Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the term 2009-2011.

6. That the administrative complaint against Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, Atty. Abelardo Estrada, Atty. Bonifacio Banrandon, Jr., Atty. Evergisto Escalon, and Atty. Raymund Jorge Mercado be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

7. Finally, to ALLOW Atty. Rogelio Vinluan to assume his post as IBP National President for the remaining portion of the term 2009-2011.

With regard to the recommendations of the Special Committee on the possible revision of the IBP Rules in order to prevent similar instances or controversies in the future, said recommendations should be referred to the Court Oversight Committee on Integrated Bar Affairs for further study and consideration.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

[1] Exhibit “A” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[2] Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 5.

[3] Exhibit “B” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[5] Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 7.

[6] Exhibits “D” and “D-1” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[8] Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 7.

[9] Exhibit “G” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[10] Memorandum dated July 3, 2009 of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 10.

[11] Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, pp. 10-11.

[15] Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 11.

[16] Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 12.

[19] Exhibit “H” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III. Art. VI, Sec. 40 of the IBP By-Laws provides:

Sec. 40. Election contests.––Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall, within two days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the President of the Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the following May 31, and shall be final and conclusive.

[20] Memorandum dated July 3, 2009 of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, pp. 13-14.

[28] Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 14.

[29] Memorandum dated July 3, 2009 of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, pp. 53-59.

[30] Exhibit “L-4” of the Memorandum dated July 3, 2009 of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan.

[31] Exhibit “J-2” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elipidio G. Soriano III.

[32] Position Paper of Atty. Elipidio G. Soriano III, p. 15.

[34] Exhibits “K,” “K-1” to “K-10” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[35] Exhibits “M,” “N,” “O” and “P,” id.

[36] Memorandum dated July 3, 2009 of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, pp. 26-27.

[37] The hearings were held on June 10, 2009; June 23, 2009; June 25, 2009; June 26, 2009; and July 2, 2009 at the Division Hearing Room, Supreme Court, Manila.

[38] Exhibit “U,” Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

[39] Aves v. Joson, No. L-29922, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 268, 270.

[40] A.C. No. 6697, Bar Matter No. 1227, A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 345, 392-393.

[42] Exhibit “J,” “J-1” to “J-6” of the Memorandum of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan dated July 3, 2009.

[43] Exhibits “L-1,” “L-2,” “L-3,” “J-5,” and “J-6” of the Memorandum of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan dated July 3, 2009.

[44] No. L-56532, September 21, 1981, 107 SCRA 589, 592.

[45] Exhibits “J,” “J-1” to “J-2,” Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III; and Exhibits “L-5” to “L-7,” Memorandum of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan dated July 3, 2009.

[46] Memorandum of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan dated July 3, 2009, p. 76.

[49] Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, then Regional Governor for Central Luzon, was elected EVP and assumed the Presidency for the term 2007-2009.

[50] A.C. No. 1034, July 23, 1974, 58 SCRA 64, 67; citations omitted.