Lawyer Suspended for Premature Election Notices: Upholding Legal Processes Under Canon 1

---

A lawyer's duty to uphold the law is not limited to the courtroom. In Fermin v. Bedol (A.C. No. 6560, September 16, 2019), the Supreme Court disciplined a provincial election supervisor for issuing notices of a special election before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had legally authorized one. The case serves as a clear reminder that public attorneys must follow legal processes strictly, even when practical concerns tempt them to act ahead of schedule.

The Facts

Complainant Mike Fermin was a candidate for mayor of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. His opponent, Bai Susan Samad, filed a petition with the COMELEC en banc to declare a failure of election in two precincts of Barangay Guiawa and to hold a special election. The case was docketed as Case No. 04-403.

The COMELEC issued a Resolution on July 27, 2004, declaring a failure of election and setting the special election for July 28, 2004. However, respondent Atty. Lintang H. Bedol, then the Provincial Election Supervisor III of Maguindanao, had already acted ahead of the COMELEC's decision. He issued a Notice dated July 23, 2004 informing candidates, political parties, and voters of the scheduled special election on July 28, 2004. He then issued an invitation for a conference on July 25, 2004, and another notice on July 26, 2004, stating that canvassing of votes would be held in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.

Fermin filed an administrative complaint for disbarment, arguing that Bedol's premature notices showed disregard for the law and rendered him unfit to remain a member of the Bar.

The Issue

The central question was whether Bedol violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors and found Bedol guilty of violating Canon 1. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.

Why the Notices Were Irregular

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166, the law on synchronized national and local elections. Under this provision, the postponement of elections, declaration of failure of election, and calling of special elections shall be decided by the COMELEC sitting en banc, by a majority vote of its members.

In this case, the COMELEC en banc issued its Resolution on July 27, 2004. Yet Bedol had already issued notices on July 23, 25, and 26, 2004 — all before the COMELEC had legally authorized the special election. The Court found this "highly irregular if not totally wrong."

Bedol argued that he acted early because election personnel could not prepare in just one day. The Court rejected this defense, stating that his claim "has no basis in law." The Court emphasized that lawyers must comply with rules of procedure rather than seek exceptions as loopholes.

The Higher Standard for Lawyers in Public Office

The Court stressed that lawyers who occupy public office carry a heavier burden. A government lawyer is "a keeper of public faith" and is burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility than lawyers in private practice. Such lawyers must not only refrain from acts that lessen public trust in government but must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.

By issuing premature notices, Bedol breached his duty to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities. His actions undermined the very legal processes he was sworn to protect.

Practical Takeaways

• Legal processes must be followed in order. A government official cannot act on a contingency before the proper authority issues the required order, no matter how pressing the practical need.
• Public lawyers face a higher ethical standard. Lawyers in government service are expected to be exemplars of respect for the law, and their misconduct is judged with corresponding severity.
• Practical convenience is not a legal defense. The argument that there was "no time to prepare" does not excuse an act taken without legal authority.
• Premature official acts can carry professional consequences. Even without a finding of corruption or bad faith, acting beyond one's legal authority can result in suspension from the practice of law.
• Canon 1 is a substantive ethical obligation. A lawyer's duty to promote respect for law and legal processes is not mere rhetoric; it is enforceable through administrative discipline.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.