IBP Elections

CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC. December 14, 2010.*
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES

IN THE ELECTION IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
A.C. No. 8292. December 14, 2010.*
ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M.

MARAMBA and NASSER MAROHOMSALIC,
complainants, vs. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN,
ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON,
JR., EVERGISTO S.ESCALON and RAYMUND JORGE A.
MERCADO, respondents.
Attorneys; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Rotation Rule;

By not fielding a candidate for Governor and by declining the
nomination raised in favor of its Chapter President, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Chapter is deemed to have waived its
turn in the rotation order.—In the regular elec-
_______________
* EN BANC.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines
tion of April 25, 2009, there is no dispute that the voting

delegates of IBP Western Mindanao Region voted into office Atty.
Marohomsalic of Lanao del Sur Chapter as Governor for the 2009-
2011 term. During the said election, his only rival was Atty.
Benjamin Lanto who also belongs to the same Lanao del Sur
Chapter. A third candidate, Atty. Escobar from the Sarangani
Chapter, was nominated but he declined the nomination. While
the 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 or fielded 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. By
not fielding a candidate for Governor and by declining the
nomination raised in favor of its Chapter President (Atty.
Escobar), the IBP Sarangani Chapter is deemed to have waived
its turn in the rotation order. The same can be said of the
remaining chapters. They too are deemed to have waived their
turn in the rotation as they opted not to field or nominate a
candidate from among their respective members. Neither did they
invoke the rotation rule to challenge the nominations from the
Lanao del Sur Chapter. On the contrary, they fully expressed
their concurrence to the cited nominations, which may be
interpreted as a waiver of their right to take their turn to
represent the region in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011
term.
Same; Same; Same; The “rotation rule” is not absolute but
subject to waiver as when the chapters in the order of rotation
opted not to field or nominate their own candidates for Governor
during the election regularly done for that purpose; The “rotation
rule” should be applied in harmony with, and not in derogation of,
the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot;
If a validly nominated candidate obtains the highest number of
votes in the election conducted, his electoral mandate deserves to
be respected unless obtained through fraud as established by
evidence.—It would have been a different story if another Chapter
in the order of rotation fielded its own candidate or invoked the
rotation rule to challenge Atty. Marohomsalic’s nomination. But
the record is bereft of any showing that his nomination and
subsequent election was challenged on that basis. If there was
any challenge at all, it merely referred to his nomination by Atty.
Macalawi which the Committee itself has found to be in order.
Thus, no compelling reason exists to disregard the electoral
mandate and nullify the will of the voting delegates as expressed
through the ballot. The “rotation rule” is not absolute but
subject to waiver as when the chapters in the order of rotation
opted not to field or nominate their own candidates for Governor
during the
3
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 3

election regularly done for that purpose. If a validly nominated

candidate obtains the highest number of votes in the election
conducted, his electoral mandate deserves to be respected unless
obtained through fraud as established by evidence. Such is not the
case here. Suffice it to say, the “rotation rule” should be applied in
harmony with, and not in derogation of, the sovereign will of the
electorate as expressed through the ballot. Thus, Atty.
Marohomsalic cannot be divested and deprived of his electoral
mandate and victory. The order of rotation is not a rigid and
inflexible rule as to bar its relaxation in exceptional and
compelling circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; The recommendation of the Committee to
hold a special election for the Executive Vice President (EVP) for
the remaining 2009-2011 term deserves to be upheld to heal the
divisions in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and
promote unity by enabling all the nine (9) Governors-elect to elect
the Executive Vice President (EVP) in a unified meeting called for
that purpose.—Be that as it may, the recommendation of the
Committee to hold a special election for the EVP for the
remaining 2009-2011 term deserves to be upheld to heal the
divisions in the IBP and promote unity by enabling all the nine (9)
Governors-elect to elect the EVP in a unified meeting called for
that purpose. This will enable matters to start on a clean and
correct slate, free from the politicking and the under handed
tactics that have characterized the IBP elections for so long.
Same; Same; Same; Legal Ethics; Misconduct; It has long
been held that, as provided for in Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that “(a) lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct,” and, added to
this, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 requires that “(a) lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”—Further, in its
report, the Committee declared 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 to discourage its repetition in the future.” The
Committee, however, fell short of determining and recommending
the appropriate penalty for the grave professional misconduct
found to have been committed by Atty. Vinluan and his group of
Governors. Still, with the above firm and unequivocal findings
and declarations of the

Committee against Atty. Vinluan and his group that included

Attys. Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado as
“unprofessional” members of the IBP Board of Governors (2007-
2009 term) they certainly do not deserve to hold such esteemed
positions. It has long been held that, as provided for in Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that “(a)
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.” Added to this, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 requires that
“(a) lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.” In the case at bar, such canons find application.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The unethical practices of
lawyers during Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) elections
cannot but result in the stature of the IBP as an association of the
practitioners of a noble and honored profession being diminished.
—Bearing the above in mind, what Attys. Vinluan, Estrada,
Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado conspired to do was truly
“high-handed and divisive” that must not pass unsanctioned.
Otherwise, future leaders of the IBP, Governors at that, might be
similarly inclined to do what they did, much to the prejudice of
the IBP and its membership. Surely, this should be addressed
without much delay so as to nip-in-the-bud such gross misconduct
and unprofessionalism. They all deserve to suffer the same fate
for betraying as well the trust bestowed on them for the high
positions that they previously held. The Resolution of the Court in
the case of Re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines already declared that unethical practices of lawyers
during IBP elections cannot but result in the stature of the IBP as
an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored
profession being diminished. As held therein, “(r)espect for law is
gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be
minions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly
brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their
observance.” Indeed, the said strong and vigorous declaration of
this Court on the 1989 IBP Election scandal is relevant here.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To the Court, if Atty.
Vinluan cannot be fit to become a Governor and Executive Vice
President (EVP) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) then
he is not entitled to succeed as its President for the 2009-2011
term.—While Atty. Vinluan and his group deserve to be stripped
of their positions in the IBP, this can no longer be done as their
terms as Governors already expired, specially on the part of Attys.
Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado. However, in the
case of Atty. Vinluan, as former EVP of the IBP he would have
automatically succeeded to
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 5

the presidency for the term 2009-2011 but now should not be
allowed to. After all, and considering the findings of the
Committee, he has clearly manifested his unworthiness to hold
the said post. On account thereof, Atty. Vinluan is thus declared
unfit to assume the position of IBP President. To the Court, if
Atty. Vinluan cannot be fit to become a Governor and EVP of the
IBP then he is not entitled to succeed as its President for the
2009-2011 term. Also, Atty. Vinluan and his group should no
longer be allowed to run as national officers to prevent such
similar irregularity from happening again. Thus, in subsequent
elections of the IBP, they are disqualified to run as candidates.
Same; Same; Same; The recommendation of the Committee to
amend Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39, 42, and 43, Article VI and
Section 47, Article VII of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) By-Laws is in order.—On the recommendation of the
Committee to amend Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39, 42, and 43,
Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, the
Court finds the same in order. As such, and in order to
immediately effect reforms in the IBP, particularly in the holding
of its elections for national officers, the subject amendments are
hereby adopted and approved.
VELASCO, JR., J., Dissenting Opinion:
Attorneys; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; The
interpretation that the other elected Board Members and Officers
of the Chapter are automatically delegates has no basis at all from
the challenged Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) By-Laws.—
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:
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.

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.
Same; Same; By imposing an additional requirement that all
delegates should be Chapter Officers, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors (BOG) clearly weakened the
authority of the local chapters to freely elect their additional
delegates.—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.
Same; Same; 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.—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
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 7

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.
Same; Same; If the intention of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (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.—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.
Same; Same; Since the 17 April 2009 Resolution of the Board
of Governors (BOG) is an amendment to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) By-Laws, it must be approved by the Supreme
Court, as required by Section 17 on the Chapter By-Laws of Article
IV and Section 77 of the IBP By-Laws.—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.”
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.
Same; Same; Nothing in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) By-Laws granted authority upon the IBP National President
to overrule the valid actions of the IBP Board of Governors (BOG).
—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 author-

ity 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.
(IBP) By-Laws requires a 3/4 vote of the Board of Governors (BOG)
for the approval of a recall of its previous Resolutions—indeed, the
“3/4 vote” argument is without legal basis.—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.
(IBP) By-Laws indicates the loss of an Executive Vice President’s
(EVP) right to vote when he presides over a meeting—even if the
EVP presides over the meeting of the IBP Board of Governors
(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.—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.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 9

Same; Same; The decision of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors in election contests is final
(Sec. 13, IBP By-Laws); One of the governing principles in the
integration of the bar is maximum Bar autonomy with minimum
supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.—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, 107 SCRA 589 (1981): 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.
Same; Same; Rotation Rule; The “rotation rule” is meant to
ensure an equitable sharing of responsibility in the professional
organization—it is not intended to shackle the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) or to reduce its Chapters into automatons.—
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.
Same; Same; Same; 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
“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
10

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.
Same; Same; While 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.—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.
Same; Same; Legal Ethics; Misconduct; A difference in
opinion as to the proper interpretation of a provision in the Rules
or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) By-Laws should
never be used as a ground to charge another member of the legal
profession for unethical conduct.—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, 58 SCRA 64 (1974): 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
11
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 11

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.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Controversy in the IBP Leadership.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Francis L. Rafil for complainant Atty. Nasser
Marohomsalic.
Victoriano V. Orocio for Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, C.J.:
This resolves the above matter involving the leadership
controversy at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
and the administrative case that was filed against some of
the high-ranking officers of the IBP on account thereof.
I. Antecedents
The Court in an En Banc Resolution dated June 2, 2009

created a Special (Investigating) Committee1 to look into
the “brewing controversies in the IBP elections, specifically
in the elections of Vice-President for the Greater Manila
Region and Executive Vice-President of the IBP itself xxx
and any other election controversy involving other chapters
of the IBP, if any”, that includes as well the election of the
Governors for Western Mindanao and Western Visayas.
Consequently, the Special Committee called the IBP
officers involved to a preliminary conference on June 10,
2009. With respect thereto, Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan then
submitted a Preliminary Con-
_______________
1 Composed of Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (Ret.), as Chairman,

and Justices Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.) and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.), as
Members.
12

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election
in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
ference Brief on the same day. During the conference it was

determined that the investigation would focus on the
following issues or controversies:
1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article V

of the IBP By-Laws which provides:
“SEC. 31. Membership.—The membership (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.”
2. Who was validly elected Governor for the Greater
Manila Region?
3. Who was validly elected Governor for Western
Visayas Region?
4. Who was validly elected Governor for Western
Mindanao Region?
5. Who was validly elected IBP Executive Vice
President for the next term?
6. What is the liability, if any, of respondent Atty.
Rogelio A. Vinluan under the administrative complaint for
“grave professional misconduct, violation of attorney’s oath,
and acts inimical to the IBP” filed against him by Attys.
Marcial Magsino, Manuel Maramba and Nasser
Marohomsalic?”
Meanwhile, a Supplemental Complaint dated June 11,

2009 was received from Attys. Magsino, Maramba and
Marohomsalic regarding the earlier complaint that they
filed last May 21, 2009 against Atty. Vinluan.
As such, then IBP President Feliciano M. Bautista and
then Executive Vice President (EVP) Vinluan agreed to
submit their respective position papers on the above issues
and controversies. Also, Atty. Vinluan was required to file
his answer to the administrative complaint against him.
A Position Paper dated June 15, 2009 was then received
from Atty. Vinluan. Attys. Elpidio G. Soriano, III and
Erwin M. Fortunato also filed their Position Papers both
dated June 15, 2009. It appears that
13
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 13

an earlier Position Paper also dated June 15, 2009 was

submitted by Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto.
For their part, Attys. Bautista, Maramba and Magsino
filed their Position Paper dated June 16, 2009.
Incidentally, in a Manifestation likewise dated June 16,
2009 Attys. Bautista, Maramba and Marcial M. Magsino
submitted the same paper but already bearing the
signature of Atty. Bautista.
Atty. Nasser A. Marohomsalic submitted his Position
Paper dated June 17, 2009. The Special Committee, in the
course of its investigation, further received a letter dated
June 22, 2009 from Atty. Alex L. Macalawi, President of
the IBP Lanao del Sur Chapter.
As to the administrative case filed against him, Atty.
Vinluan, as respondent, filed his Comment dated June 15,
2009. In turn, Attys. Magsino, Maramba and
Marohomsalic, as complainants, submitted their Reply
dated June 23, 2009.
The Special Committee then submitted a Report and
Recommendation dated July 9, 2009 the dispositive portion
of which read as follows:
“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 mo(r)e than on(e) 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 meetings of the House of Delegates, paragraph
(g), Sec. 33, Article V of the By-Laws should be amended as
follows:
14

“(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 the 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 a 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 their 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
15
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 15

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 and
disqualification of the offender from election or
appointment to any office in 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 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 elected Executive Vice
President of the IBP, the special election shall choose 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
16

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 to
discourage its repetition in the future.”
II. Findings of the Special Committee
In its Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009,

the Special Committee disclosed when it was discussing the
Board of Officers of each chapter that:
“The government of a Chapter is vested in its Board of

Officers composed of nine (9) officers, namely: the President,
Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and five (5) Directors who
shall be elected by the members of the Chapter at the biennial
meeting on the last Saturday of February, and shall hold office for
a term of two (2) years from the first day of April following their
election and until their successors shall have been duly chosen
and qualified. For the 2009-2011 term, the election of Chapter
officers was held on February 28, 2009.
In 1983 up to 1995, the Quezon City Chapter elected the usual
nine (9) officers to its Board of Officers and they were all
delegates to the House of Delegates. Beginning with the 1997-
1999 term, when it added a Public Relations Officer (P.R.O.) and
Auditor to its Board of Officers, the number of delegates allotted
to the Chapter was also increased to eleven (11) like the
membership in its Board of Officers, pursuant to a
reapportionment of delegates by the Board of Governors under
Sec. 30, Art. V of the By-Laws.
Up to the 2007-2009 term, all the officers of the QC Chapter
were also the Chapter’s delegates to the House of Delegates. Atty.
Victoria Loanzon who has been an officer of the Chapter in
various capacities since 2003, like her fellow officers in the Board,
automatically became a delegate since 2003 up to this time.
For the 2009-2011 term, the Board of Officers of the IBP-QC
Chapter that assumed office on April 1, 2009, is composed of six
(6) officers and (5) directors, namely:
President.............................. Tranquil Salvador III
Vice President ...................... Jonas Cabochan
Secretary ............................. Christian Fernandez
Treasurer.............................. Victoria Loanzon
Auditor................................ Ginger Anne Castillo
17
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 17

P.R.O.................................. Ernesto Tabujara III

Director............................... Annalou Nachura
Director.............................. Melody Sampaga
Director.............................. Francois Rivera
Director.............................. Joseph Cerezo
Director.............................. Marita Iris Laqui
It is important to be an officer of one’s Chapter and a delegate
to the House of Delegates, because a delegate gets to elect the
Governor for the Region (which must rotate among the Chapters
in the region). The Governor of the Region becomes a member of
the Board of Governors, and gets to elect, or be elected, as the
next IBP Executive Vice President who automatically becomes
President for the next succeeding term (which must also rotate
among the Regions).”2
The Special Committee then pointed out that with
respect to the IBP Board of Governors this consists of “nine
(9) Governors from the nine (9) Regions. One (1) Governor
for each Region shall be elected by the members of the
House of Delegates from that region only. The Governors,
the President and the Executive Vice-President shall hold
office for a term of two (2) years from July 1 immediately
following their election, up to June 30 of their second year
in office and until their successors shall have been duly
chosen and qualified.” It was further added by the
Committee that:
“At least one (1) month before the national convention, the
delegates from each Region shall elect the Governor for their
region. The IBP By-Laws provide that “starting in 1993-1995, the
principle on rotation shall be strictly implemented so that all
prior elections for Governor in the region shall be reckoned with
or considered in determining who should be Governor to be
selected from the different chapters to represent the region in the
Board of Governors. Hence, the governorship of the region shall
rotate among the chapters in the region.
The Governors-elect shall, by a vote of at least five (5), choose
an Executive Vice-President, x x x either from among themselves
or from other members of the Integrated Bar. The Executive
Vice-President shall
_______________
2 Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, pp. 4-5.
18

automatically become President for the next succeeding

term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine (9)
Regions.”3
According to the Committee, the “rotation of the position

of Governor of a region among the Chapters was ordered by
the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated May 14, 1991 in
Bar Matter No. 586 (Clarification Re: Bar Matter No. 491,
Atty. Romulo T. Capulong petitioner)”. With respect
thereto, it was revealed that:
“Pursuant to the principle of rotation, the governorship of a

region shall rotate once in as many terms as the number of
chapters there are in the region, to give every chapter a chance to
represent the region in the Board of Governors. Thus, in a region
composed of 5 chapters, each chapter is entitled to the
governorship once in every 5 terms, or once every ten (10) years,
since a term is two (2) years.
The record of the National IBP Secretariat shows that during
the past five (5) terms, from 1999 up to 2009, the GMR (Greater
Manila Region) governorship was occupied by the five (5) chapters
of the region as follows:
1999-2001 ----- Jose P. Icaonapo ------------ Manila III
2001-2003 ----- Santos V. Catubay, Jr. ---- QuezonCity
2003-2005 ----- Rosario Setias-Reyes ------ Manila II
2005-2007 ----- Alicia A. Risos-Vidal ------ Manila I
2007-2009 ----- Marcial M. Magsino ------- Manila IV
In the next round, which starts with the 2009-2011 term, the
same order of rotation should be followed by the five (5) chapters,
i.e., Manila III shall begin the round, to be followed by Quezon
City for 2011-2013 term, Manila for the 2013-2015 term, Manila I
for the 2015-2017 term, and Manila IV for the 2017-2019 term.
In the Western Visayas Region which is composed of ten (10)
chapters, each chapter is entitled to represent the governorship of
the region once every ten (10) terms. The first chapter to occupy
the governorship, must wait for the nine (9) other chapters to
serve their respective terms, before it may have its turn again as
Governor of the region.
The same rule applies to the Western Mindanao Region which
is composed of twelve (12) chapters.
_______________
3 Ibid, p. 6.
19
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 19

On April 25, 2009, the election of Governors for the nine (9)
IBP regions proceeded as scheduled, presided over by their
respective outgoing Governor.”4
It was then cited by the Special Committee that “Sec. 47,

Art. VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter 491,
Oct. 6, 1989, provides that the Executive Vice President
shall be chosen by the Board of Governors from among the
nine (9) regional governors. The Executive Vice President
shall automatically become President for the next
succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate among the
nine Regions.” Further, the Committee averred that:
“The list of national presidents furnished the Special
Committee by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the
governors of the following regions were President of the IBP
during the past nine (9) terms (1991-2009):
Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. ---- Central ..... 1991-

(Pangasinan) - Luzon 1993
Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon ..... Manila ..... 1993-
City) 1995
Raul R. Angangco (Makati) ..... Southern ..... 1995-
Luzon 1997
Jose Aguila Grapilon ..... Eastern ..... 1997-
(Biliran) Visayas 1999
Arthur D. Lim (Zambasulta) ..... Western ..... 1999-
Mindanao 2001
Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. ..... Northern ..... 2001-
(Kalinga-Apayao) Luzon 2003
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz ..... Bicolandia ..... 2003-
(Camarines Sur) 2005
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz ..... Bicolandia 2005-
(Camarines Sur) Aug
2006
Jose Vicente B. Salazar ..... Bicolandia ..... Aug.
(Albay) 2006-
2007
Feliciano M. Bautista ..... Central ..... 2007-
(Pangasinan) Luzon 2009

Only the governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern

Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice
President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and
Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,
or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be elected
as Executive Vice-President for the 2009-2011 term. The one who
is not chosen for this term, shall have his turn in the next (2011-
2013) term. Afterwards, another rotation shall commence with
Greater Manila in the lead, followed by Southern Luzon, Eastern
Visayas, Western Mindanao, Northern Luzon, Bicolandia,
_______________
4 Ibid, pp. 7-8.
20

Central Luzon, and either Western Visayas or Eastern Mindanao

at the end of the round.”5
The Committee then disclosed that the controversies
involved herein and should be resolved are the following:
(I) the dispute concerning additional delegates of the QC
Chapter to the House of Delegates; (II) the election of the
Governor for the Greater Manila Region (GMR); (III) the
election of Governor for the Western Visayas Region; (IV)
the election of Governor for the Western Mindanao Region;
(V) the resolution of the election protests; (VI) the election
of the IBP Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011
term; and, (VII) the administrative complaint against EVP
Rogelio Vinluan.
In addressing the above controversies, the Committee
arrived at the following findings and conclusions:
I. The silence of Sec. 31, Art. V of the IBP By-Laws on

who may be elected as additional delegates and alternates
by the remaining members of the Board of Officers of the
Chapter when the Chapter is entitled to more than two (2)
delegates to the House of Delegates, is the root cause of the
conflicting resolutions of the Bautista and Vinluan factions on the
proper interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-
Laws.
According to the Resolution No. XVIII-2009 dated April 17,
2009 of the Bautista Group, “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.
According to the Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April
2009) of the Vinluan Group, “the election of the additional
delegate/s for the 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.”
The Committee finds the qualification introduced by
Resolution No. XVIII-2009—“that the additional delegate/s
and alternates must be elected from among the remaining
officers of the Chapter”—to be consistent with the precedent
set by Section 31 itself in appointing members
_______________
5 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
21
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 21

of the Board of Officers, namely, (a) the president of the
Chapter as the delegate, and the vice president as the alternate,
or second, delegate to the House of Delegates, when the Chapter
is entitled to two (2) delegates. There is a manifest intention in
Sec. 31, Art. V of the By-Laws to reserve membership in the
House of Delegates (which is the deliberative body of the IBP) for
the elected officers of the Chapter since they have already
received the mandate of the general membership of the Chapter.
For the past four (4) terms (2003-2011), Atty. Loanzon has
been an officer and delegate of the QC Chapter to the House of
Delegates, until the Vinluan Group introduced its own
interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-Laws
and elected non-officers of the Chapter as delegates to the House
of Delegates in lieu of herself and Atty. Laqui.
We find the Vinluan Group’s interpretation of Sec. 31, Art. V,
of the By-Laws in Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special–23 April
2009) to be in error and devoid of rational and historical bases.
II. Attys. Victoria Loanzon and Marite Laqui were
properly recognized as delegates of the QC Chapter by the
Presiding Officer, GMR Governor Marcial Magsino, during the
election on April 25, 2009 of the Governor for the Greater Manila
Region, in accordance with the guideline in Resolution No. XVIII-
2009.
The argument of the QC-Chapter President Tranquil Salvador,
that
Attys. Loanzon and Laqui were not delegates because they were
not elected by the QC-Board of Officers, is not well taken.
Sec. 31, Art. V of the By-Laws provides that:
“Additional Delegates and alternates shall in proper
cases be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter.”
The QC Chapter is not a “proper case” for the election of
additional delegates by the Board of Officers because the Chapter
is entitled to the same number of delegates (11) to the House, as
the number of officers in its Board of Officers. Its officers are ipso
facto the Chapter’s delegates to the House. There is no need for
the Board of Officers to conduct an election.
A “proper case” for the election of additional delegates and
alternates by the Board of Officers occurs when the number of
additional delegates and alternates for the Chapter is less than
the members of the Board of Officers, for, then, the Board of
Officers must select, and elect, who among themselves should be
the additional delegate/s and alternates of the Chapter to the
House of Delegates. That has never been the case of the QC
Chapter.
22

III. Atty. Manuel Maramba (Manila III Chapter) was

validly elected as GMR Governor for the 2009-2011 term,
not only because he outvoted his rival, Atty. Elpidio Soriano
(Quezon City Chapter), but also because under the principle of
rotation of the governorship (Bar Matter No. 586, May 14, 1991)
since the five (5) chapters of the Greater Manila Region have all
represented the region in the Board of Governors during the past
five (5) terms, in the following order:
1999-2001 ..... Manila III ..... Jose P. Icaonapo

2001-2003 ..... Quezon City ..... Santos V. Catubay, Jr.
2003-2005 ..... Manila II ..... Rosario Setias-Reyes
2005-2007 ..... Manila I ..... Alicia A. Risos-Vidal
2007-2009 ..... Manila IV ..... Marcial M. Magsino

it is now the turn of the representative of the Manila III Chapter

to sit again in the Board of Governors for the next round which
begins in the 2009-2011 term. The Manila III representative,
Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, has every right to the position not
only because he won the election with 13 votes in his favor
against 12 for Atty. Soriano, but also because his election follows
the rotation rule decreed by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the election of Atty. Soriano (QC Chapter)
in the special election that was presided over by EVP Vinluan on
May 4, 2009, was a nullity on three (3) grounds: First, because
Atty. Soriano already lost the election on April 25, 2009. Second,
the special election conducted by the Vinluan Group on May 4,
2(00)8 was illegal because it was not called nor presided over by
the regional Governor. Third, Atty. Soriano is disqualified to run
for GMR Governor for the 2009-2011 term because his “election”
as such would violate the rotation rule which the Supreme Court
requires to be “strictly implemented”. Under the rotation rule, the
GMR governorship for the 2009-2011 term belongs to the Manila
III Chapter, not to the QC Chapter, whose turn will come two (2)
years later, in 2011-2013 yet.
IV. Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter was
duly elected as Governor for the Western Visayas Region
for the 2009-2011 term, not only because he obtained the
highest number of votes among the three (3) candidates for the
position, but also because 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 contention of the protestants, Attys. Cornelio Aldon
(Antique Chapter) and Benjamin Ortega (Negros Occidental
Chapter) that the rotation rule in Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP
By-Laws is not mandatory but only directory, betrays their
ignorance of the resolution of the Supreme Court in
23
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 23

Bar Matter No. 586 dated May 16, 1991, ruling that “the principle
on rotation shall be strictly implemented so that all prior elections
for governor in the region shall be reckoned with or considered in
determining who should be the governor to be selected from the
different chapters to represent the region in the Board of
Governors.”
V. Neither Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic nor Atty. Benjamin
Lanto is qualified to be elected Governor of Western
Mindanao Region. Sec. 39, Art. VI of the IBP By-Laws provides
that: “Starting in 1993-1995, the principle of rotation in the
position of governor among the different chapters to represent the
region in the Board of Governors shall be strictly implemented.
Under Sec. 37, Art. VI of the By-Laws, the Governor of a region
shall be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from
that region only. Since the delegate of a Chapter to the House of
Delegates is the President of the Chapter, not the Board of
Officers, the nominee of the Chapter President, not the nominee
of the Board of Officers, is the valid nominee for Governor of the
Region.
However, under the rotation rule, it is not the Lanao del
Sur Chapter that should represent the Western Mindanao
Region in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term.
The record of the IBP National Secretariat shows that, starting in
1993-1995 when the strict implementation of the rotation rule
began, the 12-chapter Western Mindanao Region has been
represented in the Board of Governors by only six (6) Chapters, as
follows:
1993- ..... Lanao del Sur ..... Dimnatang T. Saro

1995
1995- ..... Cotabato ..... George C. Jabido
1997
1997- ..... ZAMBASULTA ..... Arthur D. Lim
1999
1999- ..... ZAMBASULTA ..... Paulino R. Ersando
2001
2001- ..... North Cotabato ..... Little Sarah A.
2003 Agdeppa
2003- ..... Sultan ..... Carlos L. Valdez, Jr.
2005 Kudarat
2005- ..... SOCSARGEN ..... Rogelio C. Garcia
2007
2007- Sultan ..... Carlos L. Valdez, Jr.
2009 Kudarat
Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation, the Lanao del Sur

Chapter must wait for the six (6) other Chapters in the region
(Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur,
City) to have their turn in the Board of Governors before Lanao
del Sur may again represent the Western Mindanao Region in the
Board of Governors.
24

Since both Attys. Nasser Marohomsalic and B(e)njamin Lanto

belong to the Lanao del Sur Chapter, both of them are
disqualified to be elected as Governor of the Western Mindanao
Region for the 2009-2011 term. With respect to Atty. Benjamin
Lanto, his nomination by the Board of Officers was not only
invalid, but also lost credibility after three (3), out of the thirteen
(13) signatories to his nomination, resigned from the Board of
Officers, and six (6) others signed “authorizations” in favor of
Atty. Macalawi authorizing him to nominate and elect the
Governor for the Western Mindanao Region. That left only four
(4) votes in favor of his nomination for Governor of the Western
Mindanao Region.
VI. The elections for the IBP Executive Vice President
separately held on May 9, 2009 by the Bautista and
Vinluan Groups were null and void for lack of quorum. The
presence of five (5) Governors-elect is needed to constitute a
quorum of the 9-member Board of Governors-elect who shall elect
the Executive Vice President.
As previously stated, there were two (2) simultaneous elections
for the Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term—one was
called and presided over by EVP Vinluan in the Board Room of
the IBP National Office, while the other election for the same
position was presided over by outgoing IBP Pres. Bautista in
another room of the same building, at the same time, 9:00 A.M.,
on the same date, May 9, 2009.
Those present at the meeting of the Vinluan Group were:
1. Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano
2. Atty. Benjamin B. Lanto
3. Atty. Amador Tolentino, Jr., Governor-elect for
Southern Luzon
4. Atty. Jose V. Cabrera, Governor-elect for Bicolandia
5. Atty. Erwin Fortunato, Governor-elect for Western
Visayas
6. Atty. Roland B. Inting, Governor-elect for Eastern
Visayas
Since both Attys. Soriano and Lanto were not validly elected as
Governors respectively of the Greater Manila Region and the
Western Mindanao Region, they were disqualified to sit in the
incoming Board of Governors and participate in the election of the
succeeding Executive Vice President. The remaining four (4)
Governors-elect—Governors Tolentino, Cabrera, Fortunato, and
Inting, did not constitute a quorum of the Board of Governors to
conduct a valid election of the IBP Executive Vice President. The
election of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano as Executive Vice President by
the Vinluan Group was invalid. Aside from lack of a quorum to
conduct the elections, EVP Vinluan wrongly presided over the
election. Thus, Atty. Soriano was not duly
25
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 25

elected as Governor of the Greater Manila Region, hence, he is

disqualified to sit in the Board of Governors.
Neither did the meeting of the Bautista Group fare any better,
for those present were:
1. Atty. Milagros Fernan-Cayosa, Governor-elect for
Northern Luzon
2. Atty. Ferdinand Y. Miclat, Governor-elect for Central
Luzon
3. Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, Governor-elect for
Greater Manila
4. Atty. Roan Libarios, Governor-elect for Eastern
Mindanao
5. Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic
Atty. Marohomsalic’s election as Governor for Western
Mindanao was invalid for violating the rotation rule. The four (4)
remaining governors-elect (Attys. Cayosa, Miclat, Maramba and
Libarios) like those in the Vinluan Group, did not constitute a
quorum to conduct the election of the IBP Executive Vice
President for the current term. The election of Governor Roan
Libarios as Executive Vice President by this group was therefore
null and void.
Besides that flaw in his election, since the Eastern Visayas
Region, represented by Governor Jose Aguila Grapilon of Biliran,
had succeeded to the presidency in 1997-1999, its next turn will
come after the eight (8) other regions shall have also served in the
presidency. That will be after sixteen years, or, in 2015-2017 yet.
VII. The administrative complaint against EVP Rogelio A.
Vinluan and his Group of Governors (Abelardo Estrada of
Northern Luzon, Bonifacio Barandon of Bicolandia,
Evergisto Escalon of Eastern Visayas, and Raymund
Mercado of Western Visayas) is meritorious, for their
conduct was fractious and high-handed, causing disunity and
acrimonious disagreements in the IBP.
1. The request of the EVP Vinluan’s Group for a special
meeting of the Board of Governors on April 23, 2009—two (2) days
before the scheduled election of the regional Governors on April
25, 2009—when IBP Pres. Bautista was in Zamboanga on IBP
business, and the other Governors had just returned to their
respective regions to prepare for the April 25 election of the
regional governors, was unreasonable.
The special meeting on April 23, 2009 which he himself
presided over, violated Sec. 42, Art. VI of the By-Laws which
provides that it is the President who shall call a special meeting,
and it is also the President who shall preside over the meeting,
not Atty. Vinluan (Sec. 50, Art. VII, By-Laws).
26

The proper recourse for the Vinluan Group, in view of

President Bautista’s refusal to call a special meeting as requested
by them, is found in Section 43, Art. VI of the By-Laws which
provides that—
“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.”
But the Vinluan Group ignored that procedure. They held a
special meeting on April 23, 2009, where they adopted Resolution
No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April 2009) striking out as ultra vires
the earlier Resolution No. XVIII-2009 passed in the regular
monthly meeting of the Board of Governors on April 17, 2009.
That meeting was illegal, hence, the resolution adopted therein
was null and void.
2. The second special meeting held by the Vinluan Group on
April 30, 2009 wherein they approved Resolution XVIII-2009
(Special-A-30 April 2009) resolving the election protests in the
GMR, Western Visayas and Western Mindanao governors’
elections, with complete disregard for the protestees’ right to due
process, was likewise illegal, hence, the Group’s resolution of the
election protests was likewise null and void, and the new election
of the GMR Governor which they set on May 4, 2009 was invalid.
3. The “Board Resolution” which was adopted and faxed to
the Governors-elect on May 8, 2009, by the Vinluan Group,
setting the election of the IBP Executive Vice President on May 9,
2009, at 9:00 A.M.; declaring Pres. Bautista “unfit to preside” over
the election and “designating EVP Vinluan to preside over the
election” in lieu of Pres. Bautista, was uncalled and unwarranted,
and caused disunity and disorder in the IBP. It was in effect a
coup to unseat Pres. Bautista before the end of his term, and
prematurely install EVP Vinluan as president.
The actuations of Atty. Vinluan’s Group in defying the lawful
authority of IBP President Bautista, due to Atty. Vinluan’s
overweening desire to propel his fraternity brother, Atty. Elpidio
G. Soriano, to the next presidency of the IBP, smacked of
politicking, which is strongly condemned and strictly prohibited
by the IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration Rule.”6
Again, it must be noted that while the pending

administrative case against Atty. Vinluan and his co-
respondents has not yet been re-
_______________
6 Ibid, pp. 21-28.
27
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 27

solved, Atty. Vinluan was not allowed to assume his

position as President of the IBP for 2009-2011. Instead, the
Supreme Court designated retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Santiago Kapunan as Officer-in-Charge
of the IBP.
III. Rulings of the Court
The Court completely agrees with the recommendations

of the Special Committee with respect to, among others, the
following:
1. Declaring Atty. Manuel M. Maramba (Manila III
Chapter) as the duly elected Governor of the Greater
Manila Region for the 2009-2011 term;7 and,
2. Declaring Atty. Erwin M. Fortunato (Romblon
Chapter) as the duly elected Governor of the Western
Visayas Region for the 2009-2011 term.8
As far as the Court is concerned, there is no dispute that
the election of Atty. Maramba was in order. During the
election held last April 25, 2009 which was duly presided
over by then outgoing Greater Manila Region Governor
Marcial Magsino, it was Atty. Maramba who garnered the
highest number of votes among the delegates compared to
Atty. Soriano, 13 votes to 12 votes. However, instead of
accepting the said defeat graciously, Atty. Soriano then
filed an election protest on April 27, 2009 claiming that the
said election was void because there were non-delegates,
particularly Attys. Loanzon and Laqui of the Quezon City
Chapter, who were allowed to vote. Consequently, Atty.
Soriano got a favorable ruling from the group of Atty.
Vinluan, as EVP, and former Governors Estrada (Northern
Luzon), Barandon, Jr. (Bicolandia), Escalon (Eastern
Visayas) and Mercado (Western Visayas) per Resolution
No. XVIII-2009 (Special A-30 April 2009). This then
resulted in the anomalous election of Atty. Soriano as
Governor of the Greater Manila Region last May 4, 2009.
In addressing the said controversy, and as already
discussed, the Committee concluded that “the Vinluan
Group’s interpretation of Sec.
_______________
7 Letter G, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

8 Letter H, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
28

31, Art. V, of the By-Laws in Resolution No. XVIII-2009

(Special-23 April 2009) to be in error and devoid of rational
and historical bases.” It was then pointed out that “(t)he
argument of the QC-Chapter President Tranquil Salvador,
(as well as by Atty. Soriano), that Attys. Loanzon and
Laqui were not delegates because they were not elected by
the QC-Board of Officers, is not well taken.” Likewise, the
Committee considered the situation then involving the
Quezon City Chapter as “not a ‘proper case’ for the election
of additional delegates by the Board of Officers because the
Chapter is entitled to the same number of delegates (11) to
the House (of Delegates), as the number of officers in its
Board of Officers. Its officers are ipso facto the Chapter’s
delegates to the House. There is no need for the Board of
Officers to conduct an election.”
Thus, and as rightly determined by the Committee to
which the Court subscribes to, “the election of Atty. Soriano
(QC Chapter) in the special election that was presided over
by EVP Vinluan on May 4, 2009, was a nullity on three (3)
grounds: First, because Atty. Soriano already lost the
election on April 25, 2009. Second, the special election
conducted by the Vinluan Group on May 4, 2(009) was
illegal because it was not called nor presided by the
regional Governor (Atty. Magsino). Third, Atty. Soriano is
disqualified to run for GMR Governor for the 2009-2011
term because his “election” as such would violate the
rotation rule which the Supreme Court requires to be
“strictly implemented”.” This being so, since he was not a
duly elected Governor of the Greater Manila Region, then
Atty. Soriano cannot be voted as well as IBP Executive Vice
President for 2009-2011.
With respect to the case of Atty. Fortunato, his election
as Governor for the Western Visayas Region was upheld
since “he obtained the highest number of votes among the
three (3) candidates for the position” and “also because
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.” On account thereof, the Court is
convinced that the contentions of protestees Attys. Cornelio
Aldon (Antique Chapter) and Benjamin Ortega (Negros
Occidental Chapter) cannot prosper. After all, the Court
already upheld per its Resolution in Bar Matter No. 586
dated May 16, 1991 that the “rotation rule” under
29
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 29

Sections 37 and 39 of the IBP By-Laws “shall be strictly

implemented so that all prior elections for governor in the
region shall be reckoned with or considered in determining
who should be the governor to be selected from the
different chapters to represent the region in the Board of
Governors.” More so, when the concerned chapter invoked
its right thereto as in the case of Atty. Fortunato who came
from the Romblon Chapter which was next in the rotation.
To the Court, the election of Atty. Fortunato as
Governor last April 25, 2009 is well-settled. He did not only
come from the chapter which is entitled to be elected for
the said position, but also got the highest number of votes
among the candidates that included protestees Attys.
Aldon and Ortega. As the election was presided over by
then outgoing Governor Raymund Mercado, the Court finds
no cogent reason as well to reverse the findings of the
Committee insofar as upholding the election of Atty.
Fortunato is concerned. Suffice it to say, the Committee
was correct in not finding any anomaly with respect
thereto.
On the nullification of the election of Atty. Nasser
Marohomsalic as Governor for the Western Mindanao
Region, the Court does not agree with the recommendation
of the Committee to hold a special election in the said
region.9 Instead, the Court rules to uphold the election of
Atty. Marohomsalic last April 25, 2009 which was presided
over by then outgoing Governor Carlos Valdez, Jr.
It must be pointed out that Atty. Marohomsalic was duly
nominated by Atty. Alex Macalawi, President of the Lanao
del Sur Chapter, and the official delegate of the said
chapter to the House of Delegates for the Western
Mindanao Region during the elections held last April 25,
2009. On the other hand, Atty. Benjamin Lanto was
supposedly nominated by the Board of Officers of the Lanao
del Sur Chapter, except Atty. Macalawi, in Resolution No.
002-2009 dated February 28, 2009. However, it appears
that, as discovered by the Committee, “three (3) signatories
of the resolution” apparently “resigned as members of the
Board of Officers” since they are prosecutors who are
“ineligible for election or appointment to any position in the
Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof”, while “(s)ix (6)
other signatories
_______________
9 Letter (I), Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
30

of the resolution” allegedly “recalled their signatures” and

they, instead, “signed an ‘authorization’ authorizing the
Chapter President, Atty. Macalawi, “to select and vote” “for
the Regional Governor for Western Mindanao”.” Thus,
“(t)he withdrawal of nine (9) signatures from the
Resolution No. 002, left only four (4) votes in support of
Lanto’s nomination—a puny minority of the 14-member
Board of Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter.”10
The attempt of Atty. Vinluan and his group of Governors
to nullify the election of Atty. Marohomsalic through
Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special A-30 April 2009) was
clearly irregular and unjustified. Based on the April 25,
2009 election results, Atty. Marohomsalic won over his
rival Atty. Lanto, 6 votes to 5 votes. Consequently, he was
duly proclaimed as the elected Governor of the Western
Mindanao Region. On April 27, 2009, Atty. Lanto filed an
election protest, “questioning the validity of Atty.
Marohomsalic’s nomination by Atty. Macalawi, President of
the IBP Lanao del Sur Chapter, and claiming that his
(Lanto’s) nomination by the Board of Officers of the Lanao
del Sur Chapter was the valid nomination.”
Immediately, on April 30, 2009, the group of Atty.
Vinluan issued Resolution No. XVIII-2009 proclaiming
Atty. Lanto as the duly elected Governor without affording
Atty. Marohomsalic his right to due process. More
importantly, instead of calling for another election like
what it did for the Greater Manila Region, the group of
Atty. Vinluan proceeded to instantly declare Atty. Lanto as
having been duly elected “on the ground that the
nomination of the protestee, Nasser Marohomsalic, was
contrary to the will of the Lanao del Sur Chapter expressed
through Board Resolution No. 00(2)-2009 of the Board of
Officers (of the Lanao del Sur Chapter).”11
As borne out by the records, Atty. Marohomsalic was
duly nominated by Atty. Alex Macalawi, President of the
Lanao del Sur Chapter, and the official delegate of the said
chapter to the House of Delegates for the Western
Mindanao Region during the elections. On the other hand,
Atty. Lanto was supposedly nominated by the Board of
_______________
10 Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, pp. 14-15.

11 Ibid, p. 17.
31
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 31

Officers of the same Chapter in a resolution dated

February 28, 2009, which was not signed and approved by
Atty. Macalawi. However, and as already pointed out by
the Committee, the “withdrawal of nine (9) signatures from
the Resolution No. 002, left only four (4) votes in support of
Lanto’s nomination—a puny minority of the 14-member
Board of Officers of the Lanao del Sur Chapter.”12
Thus, the Committee, citing Sec. 37, Art. VI of the By-
Laws, clearly repudiated and overturned Resolution No.
XVIII-2009 (Special A- 30 April 2009) of Atty. Vinluan and
his group of Governors. In its Report, it declared that the
“nominee of the Chapter President, not the nominee of the
Board of Officers, is the valid nominee for Governor of the
Region,”13 thereby sustaining the position of Atty.
Marohomsalic and, in effect, the validity of his nomination
by Atty. Macalawi.
Despite the said findings, Atty. Marohomsalic was
stripped of his electoral mandate and victory when the
Committee, invoking the strict application of the “rotation
rule,” proceeded to altogether nullify the result of the
elections duly conducted on April 25, 2009. According to the
Committee, neither Lanto nor Marohomsalic is qualified to
be elected governor because it was not the turn of Lanao
del Sur chapter to represent the Western Mindanao Region
in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term. As
declared in the Report—
“However, under the rotation rule, it is not the Lanao del

Sur Chapter that should represent the Western Mindanao
Region in the Board of Governors for the 2009-2011 term.
The record of the IBP National Secretariat shows that, starting in
1993-1995 when the strict implementation of the rotation rule
began, the 12-chapter Western Mindanao Region has been
represented in the Board of Governors only six (6) Chapters, as
follows:
1993-1995 --- Lanao del Sur ... Dimnatang T. Saro

1995-1997 --- Cotatabato ... George C. Jabido
1997-1999 --- ZAMBASULTA ... Arthur D. Lim
1999-2001 --- ZAMBASULTA ... Paulino R. Ersando
_______________
12 Ibid, pp. 14-15.

13 Ibid, p. 24.
32

2001- -- North -- Little Sarah A.

2003 - Cotabato - Agdeppa
2003- -- Sultan -- Carlos L. Valdez, Jr.
2005 - Kudarat -
2005- -- SOCSARGEN -- Rogelio C. Garcia
2007 - -
2007- -- Sultan -- Carlos L. Valdez, Jr.
2009 - Kudarat -

Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation rule, the Lanao del

Sur Chapter must wait for the six (6) other Chapters in the region
(Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur,
City) to have their turn in the Board of Governors before Lanao
del Sur may again represent the Western Mindanao Region in the
Board of Governors.
Since both Attys. Nasser Marohomsalic and Benjamin Lanto
belong to the Lanao del Sur Chapter, both of them are
disqualified to be elected as Governor of the Western Mindanao
Region for the 2009-2011 term.”
The ruling of the Committee insofar as it nullified the

election of Atty. Marohomsalic as Governor of the Western
Mindanao Region cannot be sustained for not being in full
accord with facts and the rules. While the Committee may
have correctly pointed out that under the rotation rule it
was not yet the turn of IBP Lanao del Sur Chapter to
represent the region in the Board of Governors for the
2009-2011 term, it does not necessarily follow that the
result of the elections should be altogether nullified on that
ground. Evidently, and as determined by the Committee
itself, there are instances when the “rotation rule” was not
followed insofar as the elections in 1999 and 2007 were
concerned with respect to the Western Mindanao Region.
In the regular election of April 25, 2009, there is no
dispute that the voting delegates of IBP Western Mindanao
Region voted into office Atty. Marohomsalic of Lanao del
Sur Chapter as Governor for the 2009-2011 term. During
the said election, his only rival was Atty. Benjamin Lanto
who also belongs to the same Lanao del Sur Chapter. A
third candidate, Atty. Escobar from the Sarangani
Chapter, was nominated but he declined the nomination.
While the 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
33
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 33

them nominated or fielded 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.
By not fielding a candidate for Governor and by
declining the nomination raised in favor of its Chapter
President (Atty. Escobar), the IBP Sarangani Chapter is
deemed to have waived its turn in the rotation order. The
same can be said of the remaining chapters. They too are
deemed to have waived their turn in the rotation as they
opted not to field or nominate a candidate from among
their respective members. Neither did they invoke the
rotation rule to challenge the nominations from the Lanao
del Sur Chapter. On the contrary, they fully expressed
their concurrence to the cited nominations, which may be
interpreted as a waiver of their right to take their turn to
represent the region in the Board of Governors for the
2009-2011 term.
It need not be stressed that, as cited by the Committee
itself, there were instances when the Governor of the
Western Mindanao Region came from the same chapter
such as ZAMBASULTA (1997-1999 & 1999-2001) and
Sultan Kudarat (2003-2005 & 2007-2009). Thus, Atty.
Marohomsalic could not be faulted if the other chapters
opted not to field or nominate their own candidates. Having
been validly nominated and duly proclaimed as the duly
elected Governor of Western Mindanao, Atty.
Marohomsalic therefore deserves to assume his position
during the remainder of the term.
It would have been a different story if another Chapter
in the order of rotation fielded its own candidate or invoked
the rotation rule to challenge Atty. Marohomsalic’s
nomination. But the record is bereft of any showing that
his nomination and subsequent election was challenged on
that basis. If there was any challenge at all, it merely
referred to his nomination by Atty. Macalawi which the
Committee itself has found to be in order. Thus, no
compelling reason exists to disregard the electoral mandate
and nullify the will of the voting delegates as expressed
through the ballot.
The “rotation rule” is not absolute but subject to
waiver as when the chapters in the order of rotation opted
not to field or nomi-
34

nate their own candidates for Governor during the election
regularly done for that purpose. If a validly nominated
candidate obtains the highest number of votes in the
election conducted, his electoral mandate deserves to be
respected unless obtained through fraud as established by
evidence. Such is not the case here.
Suffice it to say, the “rotation rule” should be applied in
harmony with, and not in derogation of, the sovereign will
of the electorate as expressed through the ballot. Thus,
Atty. Marohomsalic cannot be divested and deprived of his
electoral mandate and victory. The order of rotation is not a
rigid and inflexible rule as to bar its relaxation in
exceptional and compelling circumstances.
If only to stress, compared to the case of Atty. Fortunato
whose Romblon Chapter invoked the “rotation rule,” no
chapter in the Western Mindanao Region which was next
in the rotation invoked the said rule.
Now, in its Report, the Committee nullified the elections
for the IBP EVP separately and simultaneously conducted
by President Bautista and EVP Vinluan on May 9, 2009
and called for a special election14 for the same. In the case
of the election conducted by EVP Vinluan, the results were
nullified for lack of authority to preside over the election
and for lack quorum, citing the disqualification of Attys.
Soriano and Lanto to sit in the incoming Board of
Governors. The finding deserves to be sustained.
In the same Report, the Committee also nullified the
result of the election for the incoming EVP conducted by
President Bautista. While recognizing President Bautista’s
authority to conduct the election, the Committee
nonetheless nullified the election results for lack of
quorum, citing the ineligibility of Atty. Marohomsalic to sit
in the incoming Board of Governors, thereby leaving only
four (out of nine) Governors-elect in attendance which did
not constitute a quorum.
With the election of Atty. Marohomsalic as Governor of
Western Mindanao being deemed valid, then the defect of
lack of quorum that supposedly tainted the election
proceedings for EVP separately con-
_______________
14 Letter J, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
35
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 35

ducted by IBP President Bautista may have been cured,

five (5) Governors being sufficient to constitute a quorum.
Be that as it may, the recommendation of the Committee
to hold a special election for the EVP for the remaining
2009-2011 term deserves to be upheld to heal the divisions
in the IBP and promote unity by enabling all the nine (9)
Governors-elect to elect the EVP in a unified meeting called
for that purpose. This will enable matters to start on a
clean and correct slate, free from the politicking and the
under handed tactics that have characterized the IBP
elections for so long.
In the conduct of the unified election of the incoming
EVP, the following findings and recommendations of the
Committee shall be adopted:
THE ROTATION OF THE
PRESIDENCY AMONG THE REGIONS—
Sec. 47, Art. VII of the By-Laws, as amended by Bar Matter

491, Oct. 6, 1989, provides that the Executive Vice President shall
be chosen by the Board of Governors from among the nine (9)
regional governors. The Executive Vice President shall
automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The
Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions.”
The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee
by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
following regions were President of the IBP during the past nine
(9) terms (1991-2009):
Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan)…Central Luzon…
1991-1993
Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon City)… Greater Manila 1993-
1995
Raul R. Anchangco (Makati)…Southern Luzon…1995-1997
Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran)… Eastewrn Visayas … 1997-
1999
Arthur D. Lim (Zambasulta)…Western Mindanao…1999-
2001
Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga Apayao)…Northern Luzon…
2001-2003
Jose Anselmo L. Cadiz (Camarines Sur)…Bicolandia…2005-
Aug. 2006
Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Albay)…Bicolandia… Aug. 2006-
2007
Feliciano M. Bautista (Pangasinan)…Central Luzon…2007-
2009
Only the Governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice
President cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and
Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
36

Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region,

or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be elected
as Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term.”
Accordingly, a special election shall be held by the

present nine-man IBP Board of Governors to elect the EVP
for the remainder of the term of 2009-2011, which shall be
presided over and conducted by IBP Officer-in-Charge
Justice Santiago Kapunan (Ret.) within seven (7) days from
notice.
Further, in its report, the Committee declared 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 to discourage its repetition
in the future.”15
The Committee, however, fell short of determining and
recommending the appropriate penalty for the grave
professional misconduct found to have been committed by
Atty. Vinluan and his group of Governors. Still, with the
above firm and unequivocal findings and declarations of
the Committee against Atty. Vinluan and his group that
included Attys. Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and
Mercado as “unprofessional” members of the IBP Board of
Governors (2007-2009 term) they certainly do not deserve
to hold such esteemed positions.
It has long been held that, as provided for in Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility16 that
“(a) lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” Added to this, Rule 7.03,
Canon 7 requires that “(a) lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous
_______________
15 Letter K, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.

16 Promulgated on June 21, 1988.
37
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 37

manner to the discredit of the legal profession.” In the case

at bar, such canons find application.
In addition, it was clear to the Committee, and the
Court agrees, that “(t)he actuations of Atty. Vinluan’s
Group in defying the lawful authority of IBP President
Bautista, due to Atty. Vinluan’s overweening desire to
propel his fraternity brother, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano, to
the next presidency of the IBP, smacked of politicking,
which is strongly condemned and strictly prohibited by the
IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration Rule.” Indeed, said
actuations of Atty. Vinluan and his group of former IBP
Governors Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado
were grossly inimical to the interest of the IBP and were
violative of their solemn oath as lawyers. After all, what
they did served only to benefit the apparently selfish goals
of defeated candidate Atty. Elpidio Soriano to be elected as
IBP EVP and be the next IBP President for the 2011-2013
term by hook or by crook.
Bearing the above in mind, what Attys. Vinluan,
Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and Mercado conspired to
do was truly “high-handed and divisive” that must not pass
unsanctioned. Otherwise, future leaders of the IBP,
Governors at that, might be similarly inclined to do what
they did, much to the prejudice of the IBP and its
membership. Surely, this should be addressed without
much delay so as to nip-in-the-bud such gross misconduct
and unprofessionalism. They all deserve to suffer the same
fate for betraying as well the trust bestowed on them for
the high positions that they previously held.
The Resolution of the Court in the case of Re: 1989
Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines17 already
declared that unethical practices of lawyers during IBP
elections cannot but result in the stature of the IBP as an
association of the practitioners of a noble and honored
profession being diminished. As held therein, “(r)espect for
law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are
supposed to be minions of the law, engage in unlawful
practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the
IBP formulated for their obser-
_______________
17 178 SCRA 398.
38

vance.”18 Indeed, the said strong and vigorous declaration

of this Court on the 1989 IBP Election scandal is relevant
here.
While Atty. Vinluan and his group deserve to be
stripped of their positions in the IBP, this can no longer be
done as their terms as Governors already expired, specially
on the part of Attys. Estrada, Barandon, Jr., Escalon and
Mercado. However, in the case of Atty. Vinluan, as former
EVP of the IBP he would have automatically succeeded to
the presidency for the term 2009-2011 but now should not
be allowed to. After all, and considering the findings of the
Committee, he has clearly manifested his unworthiness to
hold the said post. On account thereof, Atty. Vinluan is
thus declared unfit to assume the position of IBP
President. To the Court, if Atty. Vinluan cannot be fit to
become a Governor and EVP of the IBP then he is not
entitled to succeed as its President for the 2009-2011 term.
Also, Atty. Vinluan and his group should no longer be
allowed to run as national officers to prevent such similar
irregularity from happening again. Thus, in subsequent
elections of the IBP, they are disqualified to run as
candidates.
On the recommendation of the Committee to amend
Sections 31,19 33, par. (g),20 39,21 42,22 and 43,23 Article VI
and Section 47,24 Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, the Court
finds the same in order. As such, and in order to
immediately effect reforms in the IBP, particularly in the
holding of its elections for national officers, the subject
amendments are hereby adopted and approved.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves
that:
1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin
M. Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors
for the Greater Ma-
_______________
18 Re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 178
SCRA 398, 418.
19 Letter A, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
20 Letter B, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
21 Letter C, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
22 Letter D, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
23 Letter E, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
24 Letter F, Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009.
39
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 39

nila Region, Western Visayas Region and Western

Mindanao Region, respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are
UPHELD;
2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice
President for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED to
be held under the supervision of this Court within seven (7)
days from receipt of this Resolution with Attys. Maramba,
Fortunato and Marohomsalic being allowed to represent
and vote as duly-elected Governors of their respective
regions;
3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio
Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon and Raymund Mercado
are all found GUILTY of grave professional misconduct
arising from their actuations in connection with the
controversies in the elections in the IBP last April 25, 2009
and May 9, 2009 and are hereby disqualified to run as
national officers of the IBP in any subsequent election.
While their elections as Governors for the term 2007-2009
can no longer be annulled as this has already expired, Atty.
Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of IBP
Executive Vice President for the 2007-2009 term and
therefore barred from succeeding as IBP President for the
2009-2011 term;
4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33, par.
(g), 39, 42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of
the IBP By-Laws as contained in the Report and
Recommendation of the Special Committee dated July 9,
2009 are hereby approved and adopted; and
5. The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago
Kapunan as Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall continue,
unless earlier revoked by the Court, but not to extend
beyond June 30, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr.,

Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., I join the Dissenting Opinion of J. Velasco.
Carpio-Morales, Nachura, Peralta, Del Castillo and
Sereno, JJ., No Part.
40

Velasco, Jr., J., On Official Leave but left dissenting

opinion. See Dissenting Opinion.
Brion, J., I certify that J. Brion filed his concurring
vote. (Sgd.) Corona, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION
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
41
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 41

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
in proper cases be elected by the Board.”
Section 31. Membership.—The membership of the House of
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 Eastern Mindanao
Batacan (Affirmative vote)
Gov. Carlos Valdez, Jr. Western Mindanao
(Affirmative vote)
Gov. Raymund Jorge Western Visayas
Mercado (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
_______________
1 Exhibit “A” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.

2 Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 5.
42

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

4 Exhibit “C,” id.
6 Exhibits “D” and “D-1” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G.
Soriano III.
43
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 43

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 Roland A. Tulay
(Secretary)
2. Ginger Anne S. Castillo Anthony Raymond M.
(Auditor) Velicaria
3. Ernesto A. Tabujara III Anna Celeste P. Bernad
(P.R.O.)
4. Annalou S. Nachura Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-
(Director) Trinidad
5. Melody S. Sampaga Rhea R. Julian
(Director)
6. Joseph Cerezo (Director) Cherrie B. Belmonte-Lim
7. Francois D. Rivera III Gerely C. Rico
(Director)
8. Renato M. Callanta Ramon C. Chingcuangco
(Past President)
9. George S. Briones Felix Jasper D.C. Tumaneng
(Past President)
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:
_______________
7 Exhibit “E,” id.

8 Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 7.
44

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. BAUTISTA9
Pursuant to Bautista’s Memorandum, Gov. Magsino

declared Atty. Loanzon and Atty. Laqui as Delegates of the
IBP-QC Chapter 10entitled to vote in the election of the
GMR Governor.
_______________
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.
45
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 45

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

12 Id., at p. 11.
13 Id.
46

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 Protest19 with
the office of
_______________
14 Id.
15 Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III, p. 11.
17 Id.
18 Id., at pp. 12-13.
19 Exhibit “H” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III. Art.
VI, Sec. 40 of the IBP By-Laws provides:
47
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 47

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
_______________
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.
21 Id., at p. 14.
22 Id.
48

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
_______________
23 Id., at p. 15.
24 Id.
25 Id., at p. 15.
26 Id.
27 Id., at pp. 15-16.
49
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 49

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.
_______________
50

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
_______________
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.
33 Id., at pp. 15-16.
34 Exhibits “K,” “K-1” to “K-10” of the Position Paper of Atty. Elpidio G.
Soriano III.
51
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 51

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. Governor for Bicolandia
Barandon, Jr.
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- Governor for Northern Luzon
Cayosa
Ferdinand Y. Miclat Governor for Central Luzon
Roan I. Libarios Governor for Eastern
Mindanao
Nasser Marohomsalic Governor for Western
Mindanao

_______________
35 Exhibits “M,” “N,” “O” and “P,” id.
52

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
President of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the
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 dele-
_______________

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.
53
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 53

gates 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
54

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,
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.
55
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 55

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),
56

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.
57
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 57

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-

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.
58

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:
“Section 8. Delegates.—The President shall concurrently be

the Delegate of the Chapter to the House of Delegates. The Vice
in proper cases be elected by the Board.
Section 31. Membership.—The membership of the House of
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
59
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 59

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
60

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.
61
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 61
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
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.”
62
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:
“Section 31. Membership.—The membership of the House of

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.
63
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 63

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 NAME OF CHAPTER

HOUSE OF DELEGATE
DELEGATES
1973-1974 Atty. Alexander Castro Pangasinan
Atty. Abelardo Subido Manila IV
Atty. Cirilo Asperilla Manila IV
1975-1977 Atty. Francisco Rizal
Santiago Cebu City
Atty. Pablo Garcia
Manila IV
Atty. Angel Purisima Manila IV
Atty. Gonzalo River
1977-1979 Atty. Jose Balajadia Rizal
Atty. Ponciano Quezon
Mortera City
1979-1981 No records were made
1981-1983 available
1983-1985 Atty. Teodoro Regino Pangasinan
Atty. Gines Abellana Cebu City
Atty. Leoncio Mercado Manila II
Atty. Ponciano Quezon
Mortera City
1987-1989 available
1991-1993 available
1993-1995
1995-1997 Atty. Oscar Fernandez Pangasinan
Atty. Ma. Elena Manila II
Francisco Manila IV
Atty. Yolando Lim
_______________
38 Exhibit “U,” Memorandum of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano III.
64

Atty. Antonio Abad, Jr. Quezon City

Atty. Teresita Oledan Quezon City
1997-1999 Atty. Hermogenes Decano Pangasinan
1999-2001 No records were made available
2001-2003 Atty. Ma. Victoria Cabrera Pangasinan
Atty. Gines Abellana Cebu City
2003-2005 Atty. Nicasio Templanza Manila IV
Atty. Napoleon Espiritu Manila IV
2005-2007 Atty. Hermogenes Decano Pangasinan
Atty. Nestor Nuez Cebu City
2007-2009 Atty. Baltazar Servito Pangasinan
Atty. Bienvenido Somera, Jr. Makati City
Atty. Grace Quevendo-Panagsagan Makati City
Atty. Democrito Barcenas 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
_______________
39 Aves v. Joson, No. L-29922, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 268, 270.
65
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 65

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:
“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
Board.”
66

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.
67
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 67

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
68

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.
69
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 69

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
_______________
40 A.C. No. 6697, Bar Matter No. 1227, A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, July 25, 2006, 496
SCRA 345, 392-393.
41 Supra note 40, at pp. 390-391.
70

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
71
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 71

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
_______________
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.
72

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.
_______________
44 No. L-56532, September 21, 1981, 107 SCRA 589, 592.
73
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 73

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.
74

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)
75
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 75

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 Atty. Santos Catubay Jr.
City
1999-2001 Manila III Atty. Jose Icaonapo Jr.
1997-1999 Manila I Atty. Jacinto Formes
1995-1997 Manila III Atty. Amy Wong
2/1994 - Manila III Atty. Amy Wong
6/1995
7/1993 - Manila II Atty. Gonzalo Santos, Jr.
2/1994
1991-1993 Quezon Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto
City
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.
76

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.
Records45 show that after the BOG resolved all the
individual protests on April 30, 2009, the concerned parties
and the various Chap-
_______________
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.
77
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 77

ters 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);
78

(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;
(c) Engage the services of employees, define their duties and
fix their compensation;
(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
79
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 79

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:
80

“Sec. 5. Board of Officers.—The government of the Chapter is

vested in a Board of Officers composed of a President, a Vice-
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
81
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 81

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 records46 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
_______________
46 Memorandum of Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan dated July 3, 2009, p. 76.

47 Supra note 40, at p. 398.
82

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. Leonard 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.
_______________
48 February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 1, 8-9.

49 Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, then Regional Governor for Central
Luzon, was elected EVP and assumed the Presidency for the term 2007-
2009.
83
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 83

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
committ ing 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
_______________
50 A.C. No. 1034, July 23, 1974, 58 SCRA 64, 67; citations omitted.
84

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
e. Eastern Visayas - Atty. Roland B. Inting
g. Eastern Mindanao - Atty. Roan I. Libarios
h. 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.
85
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 85

6. That the administrative complaint against Atty.

Rogelio Vinluan, Atty. Abelardo Estrada, Atty.
Bonifacio Barandon, 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.
Elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin M.

Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors
upheld; A special election for IBP Executive Vice President
for 2009-2011 ordered to be held; Attys. Rogelio Vinluan,
Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto
Escalon and Raymund Mercado are disqualified to run as
National Officers of IBP in any subsequent election for
grave professional misconduct; Proposed amendments to
IBP By-Laws approved and adopted; and Designation of
retired SC Justice Santiago Kapunan as OIC of IBP shall
continue.
Notes.—A Clerk of Court is liable for misconduct for

attempting to recruit the court employees in the
furtherance of the cause of a local chapter of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines—the court employees have no
involvement and should not be thrown into the controversy
concerning alleged irregularities in the designation of
judges. (Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Joboco,
294 SCRA 119 [1998])
A lawyer’s failure to pay his Integrated Bar of the
Philippines dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe
penalty. (Santos, Jr. vs. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

IBP Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBP Elections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBP Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC. December 14, 2010.*

IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES

A.C. No. 8292. December 14, 2010.*

ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M.

Attorneys; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Rotation Rule;

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

tion of April 25, 2009, there is no dispute that the voting

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 3

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

election regularly done for that purpose. If a validly nominated

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

Committee against Atty. Vinluan and his group that included

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 5

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

These provisions say that the additional delegates and alternates

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 7

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

April 17, 2009 Resolution that the Board of Officers of a particular

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

ity upon the IBP National President to overrule the valid

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 9

Same; Same; The decision of the Integrated Bar of the

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 11

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the

justify the imposition of either penalty. A difference in opinion as

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

The Court in an En Banc Resolution dated June 2, 2009

1 Composed of Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (Ret.), as Chairman,

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ference Brief on the same day. During the conference it was

1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article V

Meanwhile, a Supplemental Complaint dated June 11,

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 13

an earlier Position Paper also dated June 15, 2009 was

“A. That to avoid further controversy regarding its proper

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“(g) In all meetings and deliberations of the House, whether

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 15

deleting the provision for the election of the President. Moreover,

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and orderly flow of business in the IBP, caused chaos in the

II. Findings of the Special Committee

In its Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009,

“The government of a Chapter is vested in its Board of

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 17

P.R.O.................................. Ernesto Tabujara III

2 Report and Recommendation dated July 9, 2009, pp. 4-5.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

automatically become President for the next succeeding

According to the Committee, the “rotation of the position

“Pursuant to the principle of rotation, the governorship of a

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 19

It was then cited by the Special Committee that “Sec. 47,