Lahm v.

Mayor, 216 SCRA 738

FACTS:
Toze filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC against the members of the Board of Trustees of the International School
Manila. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent, Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll.
Mayor, Jr. During the proceedings, Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, to which the
complainants, Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion, opposed. Thereafter, the
respondent issued an Order directing the parties in the said case to maintain the
status quo ante, which consequently reinstated Toze to his former position as
superintendent of the International School Manila. Despite the complainants’ motion
for an early resolution of their motion to dismiss the said case, respondent
maintained his Order (requiring the parties to maintain the status quo ante until the
motion for the issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction will be acted
upon). However, the new rules of procedures of the NLRC provides that the labor
arbiters no longer have the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or
TROs in which Mayor insists. Thus, the complaint praying for the respondent’s
disbarment for alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent is guilty for the gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.

RULING:
YES. The respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with
the strictures of the lawyer’s oath and the CPR as he is stubbornly insisting that he
has the authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or TRO, contrary to the
clear import of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Hence, the respondent
violated Canon 1 of the CPR which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
The respondent has committed gross ignorance of the law, his acts as a labor arbiter
in the case being inexcusable thus unquestionably resulting in prejudice to the rights
of the parties therein.

76