NATIVIDAD R. MUNAR, et al., Petitioners vs. ATTY. ELMER T. BAUTISTA and ATTY. WINSTON F. GARCIA, Respondents

A.C. No. 7424

FEBRUARY 8, 2017

FACTS: Petitioners are public school teachers and bona fide members of the GSIS.  They contracted Deeds of Conditional Sale for their respective housing units through salary deduction with the GSIS.  They collectively filed a disbarment case against the respondents who were Chief Legal Counsel of the GSIS Legal Services Group and GSIS General Manager, respectively, when the former issued a Memorandum regarding the right of GSIS to retain ownership of the subject housing units and to collect the purchase price thereof through salary deduction against the petitioners, for which, the Board of Trustees of the GSIS passed Board Resolution No. 48, where, in turn, the General Manager enforced and implemented.

ISSUE:  Whether or not, the respondents-lawyers violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 5 of the CPR and Attorney’s Oath when they implemented Board Resolution No. 48 of the GSIS, hence, be disbarred.

HELD: NO. The petitioners assail the validity of Board Resolution No. 48 of the GSIS.  The respondent-lawyers only acted, in their official capacity, in implementing the said Board Resolution.  The petitioners should have filed a petition before the GSIS Board of Trustees to question the validity of Bard Resolution No.48.  There being no administrative declaration of the resolution’s invalidity, it was incumbent upon Atty. Garcia to implement the same, as GSIS President and General Manager, in accordance with his mandate under Section 45 of R.A. No. 8291.  Any disobedience would hold him liable under R.A. No. 3019 and the GSIS Charter.  Nothing from the acts of the respondents-lawyers is deemed a violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), its Canon 5, and the Attorney’s Oath.