Case Digest: MARCOLETA v. BORRA and BRAWNER

RODANTE D. MARCOLETA v. RESURRECCION Z. BORRA and ROMEO A. BRAWNER
582 SCRA 474 (2009)

An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached

Rodante D. Marcoleta filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) charging them with violating Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Canons 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The complaint arose from the resolution of the Comelec’s First Division in favor of one Diogenes S. Osabel, the head of one of the factions in the party-list group Alagad. The ponencia was written by Commissioner Borra while Commissioner Brawner concurred. The dispute was elevated to the Comelec En Banc. The latter affirmed the decision of the Comelec’s First Division.

Brawner, in his answer asserted that the complainant should have filed an appeal via petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, and that being members of a constitutional body he and Borra ―are supposed to be insulated from a disbarment complaint for being impeachable officer.‖ For his part, Borra contends that the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics cannot be made to apply to him and Brawner because they are not members of the judiciary.

Marcoleta argues that Brawner and Borra cannot take refuge in their being impeachable public officers to insulate them from any disbarment complaint. For him ―the insulation from disbarment complaint of impeachable public officers when referring particularly to the members of the Comelec applies only to the majority of its members who should all be members of the Philippine bar,‖ citing Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Borra and Brawner are supposed to be insulated from a disbarment case for being impeachable officers

HELD:

At the outset, the Court, guided by its pronouncements in Jarque v. Ombudsman, In Re: Raul M. Gonzales and Cuenco v. Fernan, has laid down the rule that an impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. Marcoleta’s availment of Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution to skirt this rule is specious.

It bears emphasis that the provision that majority of Comelec members should be lawyers pertains to the desired composition of the Comelec. While the appointing authority may follow such constitutional mandate, the appointment of a full complement of lawyers in the Comelec membership is not precluded.

At the time the present complaint was filed, Brawner and Borra and three other commissioners were all lawyers. As an impeachable officer who is at the same time a member of the Bar, Borra must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment before he may be held to answer administratively for his supposed errant resolutions and actions.

The Court thus finds respondent Borra’s contention that the grounds-bases of the disbarment complaint, fastened on supposed errors of judgment or grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts, are proper for an appeal, hence, complainant’s remedy is judicial, not administrative.

As for complainant’s invocation of Section 58 of Article VII of the Omnibus Election Code the same relates to the quasi-judicial function of the Comelec, which function rests on judgment or discretion, so that while it is of judicial nature or character, it does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge.

The same provision thus directs that in the exercise of the Comelec’s quasi-judicial power, the chairman and members should be guided by the canons of judicial ethics. It bears emphasis that the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary applies only to courts of law, of which the Comelec is not, hence, sanctions pertaining to violations thereof are made exclusively applicable to judges and justices in the judiciary, not to quasi-judicial officers like the Comelec chairman and members, who have their own codes of conduct to steer them.

Even if the Court were to gauge the assailed actions of respondent Borra under the Code of Professional Responsibility, no specific incidents and sufficient evidence can be gathered to show that respondent did engage in dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in his capacity as a lawyer. It bears reiteration that the acts particularized in the complaint pertain to respondent Borra’s duties as a Comelec commissioner.