MARONILLA vs.
JORDA
FACTS:
Atty. Jorda is a lawyer with the University of the Philippines-Diliman Legal Office. In behalf of
the Diliman Legal Office, he was involved in the prosecution of several students of the University of the
Philippines (U.P.), including the two (2) sons of Atty. Ramon Maronilla,[2] for their alleged participation in
the mauling of another U.P. student, Ferdinand Ocampo.
The U.P. Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) conducted the formal investigation of the Maronilla
brothers and recommended that the complaint against the Maronillas be dismissed for lack of substantial
evidence.
Atty. Jorda filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated with the office of the U.P. President, with
respect to the dismissal of the complaint against the Maronillas.
AND HE ALSO filed an Extended Manifestation praying that the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
the Student Disciplinary Tribunal decision be considered as an appeal.
These actions caused the complainant, the father of the Maronillas, to file complaint with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Jorda
The complaint was based on Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other
Student Organizations, Rule V, Section 2 provides that a respondent penalized by the SDT the right to
appeal, but not any other party.
And so, the complainant claimed that the University prosecutor is not expressly granted the right to
appeal a decision of the SDT acquitting a respondent.
The IBP issued its Report and Recommendation, submitting that Atty. Jorda is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility as well as gross ignorance of the law.
The Court approved the recommendations of the IBP. The Court stated that Jorda breached a procedural
rule no higher than the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other
Student Organizations and that Jorda, as a functionary of a state university, was obliged to adhere to the
due process clause of the Constitution.
So, Atty. Jorda was reprimanded for gross ignorance of the law and for violating Rule 12.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility,[7] which mandates that [a] lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede
the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Atty. Jorda now seeks the reconsideration of the Courts Resolution.
He presented to the Court concerns Art. 50 of the University Code, which discusses the power of the
President of the U.P. to modify or disapprove any action or resolution of any college or school faculty or
administrative body.
According to Atty. Jorda, this provision states that the U.P. President exercises plenary powers to modify
or disapprove any action or resolution of any faculty or administrative body, including the SDT.
At the very least, the viability of review by the U.P. President under Art. 50 negates the notion that the
pursuit of an appeal from a decision of the SDT to the U.P. President constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
Issue:
Whether or not atty. Jordas pursuit of an appeal from a decision of the SDT to the U.P. President
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Held:
The court ruled that Art. 50 is determinative of the administrative complaint
The prohibition against motions for reconsideration of SDT rulings and/or resolutions as provided in
Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities does not translate into an express bar against an
appeal to the U.P. President as provided by Art. 50 of the University Code.
On the other hand, the appellate procedure spelled out in the Rules and Regulations clearly refer to
appeals as being undertaken not with the SDT, but with the U.P. President.
The right to appeal under said rules is extended only to respondents in SDT cases, but at the same time, it
do not explicitly bar an appeal filed by a person other than the respondent, such as the complainant or a
prosecutor such as Atty. Jorda.
Art. 50 of University Code allows the U.P. President to reverse a recommendation of acquittal rendered
by the SDT. It allows the U.P. President to act as if such appeal was filed and accordingly reverse the
SDT.
The precept that an appeal cannot be undertaken without any express provision of law authorizing the
same. The strict application of that principle must be tempered in light of Art. 50, which does not
expressly grant Atty.Jorda the right of appeal yet unmistakably does authorize the U.P. President to
consider any appeal Atty. Jorda may file.
We rule that they are Accordingly, Atty. Jorda cannot be found liable for gross ignorance of the law. Gross
ignorance of the law necessitates in the first place an action contrary to law, and the appeal undertaken by
Atty. Jorda, even if not expressly sanctioned, was neither expressly barred and indeed permissible within
the discretion of the U.P. President to recognize under Art. 50 of the University Code.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Jorda was GRANTED. The complaint against
respondent Atty. Efren N. Jorda is DISMISSED.
