A.C. No. 14128 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6086) - WILMA L. ZAMORA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Office hereby recommends the ADMONITION for Charge B and the SUSPENSION for six (6) months from the practice of law of the respondent for Charge D-­unfair and unjust accusations against other members of the bar. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED . [21] (Emphasis in the original) According to Commissioner Josefina Ela Bueno, while the pleadings filed by Mahinay were allowed by the Rules, he took undue advantage of them to prolong the proceedings, thus impeding the speedy disposition of cases and the orderly administration of justice. [22] The Commissioner also found condemnable and unethical Mahinay's statement that "Zamora and her lawyers may be persons of interest" in relation to the alleged threats to Mahinay's life. [23] Thus, the IBP-CBD dismissed the charge of forum shopping and misleading the courts for lack of merit but found Mahinay guilty of abuse of court processes and unfair and unjust accusations against other members of the bar. On February 8, 2024, Mahinay received a copy of the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) dated September 2, 2023. The Resolution modified the findings of the Commissioner by dismissing the charge of abuse of court processes while still adopting the penalty imposed for unjust accusations against members of the Bar, to wit: RESOLUTION NO. XXVI-CRM-2023-09-06 RESOLVED, to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner (IC) to-1) DISMISS Charge A, for forum shopping, and Charge C, for misleading the courts for lack of merit, and 2) mete out upon respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for Charge D, for unjust accusations against members of the Bar, and RESOLVED, to REVERSE, as it is hereby REVERSED , the Report and Recommendation of the IC as to Charge B for abuse of court processes, and to recommend instead to DISMISS the same for lack of merit, considering that the charges of filing frivolous cases or motions to inhibit were dismissed by the courts concerned. [24] (Emphasis in the original) Convinced that the findings of the IBP in its Report are "substantially defective, which may result [in] a miscarriage of justice," [25] Mahinay filed before the IBP a Motion to Reopen the Proceedings on February 16, 2024, or eight days after his receipt of the above Resolution. However, by January 17, 2024, IBP-CBD transmitted to the Court the Notice of Resolution of the IBP­-BOG and the records of the case. [26] No Motion for Reconsideration or Petition for Review was filed as of January 19, 2024. [27] Mahinay then filed a Manifestation dated February 16, 2024, praying for his Motion to Reopen the Proceedings to be taken into consideration in the final disposition of the case. [28] Ruling of the Court While we find Mahinay administratively liable, We adjudicate the matter differently from what the IBP has recommended. As preliminary matter, We