The Supreme Court in Festin v. Zubiri addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly concerning fairness, candor, and respect for legal processes. The Court found Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for improperly attempting to influence a court officer and circumventing procedural rules to benefit his client. This case underscores that a lawyer’s duty to zealously represent a client must always be balanced with their obligations to the court, opposing parties, and the integrity of the legal system. The decision serves as a crucial reminder that procedural shortcuts and ex parte communications can lead to disciplinary action.

Crafty Maneuvers or Ethical Lapses? Unpacking a Lawyer’s Duty to the Court

Romulo De Mesa Festin filed a complaint against Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri, alleging that Zubiri violated the CPR by attempting to influence the Branch Clerk of Court (COC) to issue a writ of execution pending appeal, despite a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the COMELEC and a subsequent order from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to halt the writ’s issuance. The case highlights the tension between a lawyer’s duty to zealously represent their client and the ethical obligations to uphold the law, respect legal processes, and act with fairness towards opposing parties. The central legal question is whether Atty. Zubiri’s actions in filing multiple “manifestations” directly with the COC, instead of proper motions with the court, constituted a violation of his ethical duties as a lawyer.

At the heart of the controversy was Atty. Zubiri’s decision to file five “manifestations” with the COC, arguing for the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. Crucially, these manifestations were not served to the opposing party, Festin. Atty. Zubiri contended that the COMELEC’s TRO was addressed only to the RTC Judge, not the COC, and that the period for issuing the writ had already lapsed. This justification, however, did not sit well with the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that lawyers must conduct themselves with fairness and candor, observing procedural rules and not misusing them to defeat the ends of justice. According to Canon 8 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR:

CANON 8 – A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

The Court drew a sharp distinction between a manifestation and a motion, clarifying that a manifestation is merely for the information of the court, while a motion seeks relief and requires notice to the opposing party. By labeling his pleadings as manifestations, Atty. Zubiri sidestepped the notice requirement, depriving Festin of the opportunity to respond. This tactic, the Court found, was a clear violation of procedural fairness. As the Court pointed out:

In contrast, a motion is an application for relief from the court other than by a pleading and must be accompanied by a notice of hearing and proof of service to the other party, unless the motion is not prejudicial to the rights of the adverse party. Settled is the rule that a motion without notice of hearing is pro forma or a mere scrap of paper; thus, the court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it. The reason for the rule is simple: to afford an opportunity for the other party to agree or object to the motion before the court resolves it. This is in keeping with the principle of due process.

Atty. Zubiri’s defense rested on his duty to represent his client with competence and diligence, as mandated by Canon 18 of the CPR. However, the Court clarified that this duty is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Canon 19 reinforces this, stating that lawyers must employ only fair and honest means to attain their clients’ objectives. The Court found that Atty. Zubiri’s actions crossed the line, constituting an attempt to circumvent legal processes and gain an unfair advantage.

Furthermore, Atty. Zubiri argued that the RTC had lost jurisdiction over the case and that the COC had a ministerial duty to issue the writ of execution. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the RTC Judge had explicitly directed the COC “NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution.” Thus, the COC had no ministerial duty to issue the writ. The Court noted that the proper course of action for Atty. Zubiri would have been to file motions before the court, rather than clandestinely submitting ex parte manifestations to the COC.

In its decision, the Supreme Court weighed the gravity of Atty. Zubiri’s ethical violations. While the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month suspension, the Court, exercising its discretion, imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law. This penalty reflects the Court’s recognition that while Atty. Zubiri’s actions warranted disciplinary action, a less severe punishment would still serve the purpose of reforming the erring lawyer and upholding the integrity of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Conduct that delays, impedes, or obstructs justice is a violation of this fundamental obligation.

The decision in Festin v. Zubiri serves as a crucial reminder that a lawyer’s duty to zealously represent a client is not a license to disregard ethical obligations or procedural rules. Fairness, candor, and respect for the legal process are paramount. Lawyers must strive to maintain the highest standards of professionalism, ensuring that their actions uphold the integrity of the legal system and promote justice for all.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Zubiri violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing manifestations directly with the COC instead of proper motions with the court, thereby circumventing procedural rules and depriving the opposing party of due process.
What is the difference between a manifestation and a motion?	A manifestation is a statement made for the information of the court, while a motion is an application for relief that requires notice to the opposing party. Filing a motion requires notice to the other party to allow them to respond.
What Canons of the CPR did Atty. Zubiri violate?	Atty. Zubiri was found guilty of violating Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution and promoting respect for law), Canon 8 (conducting oneself with fairness and candor), and Rule 10.03 of Canon 10 (observing the rules of procedure).
Why did the Court impose a suspension?	The Court imposed a three-month suspension to discipline Atty. Zubiri for attempting to circumvent legal processes and gain an unfair advantage by improperly influencing the COC and failing to provide notice to the opposing party.
Did the Court agree with the IBP’s recommended penalty?	No, while the IBP recommended a six-month suspension, the Court reduced it to three months, finding that a less severe penalty would still achieve the desired end of reforming the lawyer.
What was the basis for Atty. Zubiri’s defense?	Atty. Zubiri argued that he was merely representing his client with competence and diligence, and that the TRO was not binding on the COC. He also argued that the RTC had lost jurisdiction.
Why did the Court reject Atty. Zubiri’s argument about representing his client?	The Court clarified that a lawyer’s duty to represent a client is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, employing only fair and honest means.
What is a lawyer’s primary duty according to the Court?	The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice, and conduct that obstructs justice is a violation of this duty.

The Festin v. Zubiri case serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the ethical standards expected of legal professionals in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of upholding procedural fairness and respecting the legal process, even while zealously advocating for a client’s interests. By clarifying the distinctions between permissible advocacy and unethical manipulation, the decision provides valuable guidance for lawyers navigating complex legal challenges.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ROLANDO V. ZUBIRI, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017