G.R. No. A.C. No. 14128 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6086), April 02, 2025
Wilma L. Zamora, Complainant, vs. Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, Respondent.

FACTS

The complaint arose from intra-corporate disputes within PJH Lending Corporation. Complainant Wilma L. Zamora accused respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, counsel for the opposing faction, of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Zamora alleged that Mahinay engaged in forum shopping and abuse of court processes by repeatedly filing motions to suspend criminal proceedings for falsification based on a prejudicial question, despite consistent denials from the prosecutor’s office and various trial courts. These successive motions allegedly caused prolonged delay.
Zamora further accused Mahinay of misleading the court and depriving her of participation in a forensic examination of a deed. She claimed that after securing a court order for an NBI examination, Mahinay initiated the process without disclosing the pendency of Zamora’s motion for reconsideration. Lastly, Zamora alleged that Mahinay made reckless and unjust accusations against her lawyers in a separate disbarment case, claiming they plotted his assassination, and distributed these allegations to judges not involved in that case.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Court found Atty. Mahinay guilty of misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer has the duty to defend a client with zeal, this must be done within the bounds of law and professional ethics. On the charge of forum shopping and abuse of process, the Court ruled that Mahinay’s repeated filing of motions on the same prejudicial question issue, after it had been definitively resolved by the prosecution, constituted an improper use of judicial mechanisms. His actions transcended zealous advocacy and amounted to a strategy designed to delay proceedings, violating his duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice.
Regarding the forensic examination, the Court found that Mahinay’s act of proceeding with the NBI examination without informing the agency of the pending motion for reconsideration was a failure to act with candor and fairness. This lack of transparency compromised the integrity of the process. Most seriously, the Court found Mahinay’s unsubstantiated allegations of an assassination plot against fellow lawyers to be grossly irresponsible. Making such grave accusations without any proof and disseminating them beyond the relevant case demonstrated a reckless disregard for the reputation of his colleagues and the dignity of the legal profession. This conduct violated the fundamental duty of lawyers to uphold the honor and integrity of the bar. The one-year suspension serves as a sanction for this compounded misconduct.