PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |1

[A.C. No. 5148. July 1, 2003.] Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint 4 for
estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court
Atty. RAMON P. REYES, Complainant, v. Atty. (RTC) of Manila. 5 On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC
VICTORIANO T. CHIONG, JR., Respondent. issued a Warrant of Arrest 6 against Pan.

DECISION Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to

Quash the Warrant of Arrest. 7 He also filed with
the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the
PANGANIBAN, J.: collection of a sum of money and damages as well
as for the .dissolution of a business venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy,
dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility of When confronted by complainant, respondent
their clients should not affect their conduct and explained that it was Pan who had decided to
rapport with each other as professionals and institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes.
members of the bar. Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client
to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Case the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two
lawyers failed to reach a settlement.

Before us is a Sworn Complaint 1 filed by Atty. In his Comment 8 dated January 27, 2000,
Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant respondent argued that he had shown no disrespect
of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil
Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his lawyer’s Case No. 4884. He claimed that there was no basis
oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it
Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as
Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar an additional defendant because of the irregularities
Discipline resolved to suspend him as follows: the latter had committed in conducting the criminal
investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his resolved to file the estafa case despite the pendency
oath which binds him in the obligation that he will of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any Counter-Affidavits and Evidence, 9 of the appeal 10
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to
consent to the same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Defer/Suspend Proceedings. 11
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness On the other hand, complainant was impleaded,
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing filing the estafa case, which the former knew fully
counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor well was baseless. According to respondent, the
Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in
apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, the criminal investigation and complainant’s
respondent violated his oath of office as well as the connivance therein were discovered only after the
above-quoted Canon of the Code of Professional institution of the collection suit.
Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years." 2 The Third Division of this Court referred the case to
the IBP for investigation, report and
The Facts recommendation. 12 Thereafter, the Board of
Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002
Resolution. 13
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime
in January 1998, his services were engaged by one Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Zonggi Xu, 3 a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business
venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a In her Report and Recommendation, 14
Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the
factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and
another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga report, averred that complainant and Prosecutor
City. Eventually, the former discovered that the Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884
latter had not established a fishball factory. When on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for
Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, estafa they had filed against respondent’s client. In
making it necessary for the former to seek legal his Comment, respondent himself claimed that "the
assistance. reason . . . was . . . the irregularities of the criminal
investigation/connivance and consequent
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint damages." cralaw virtua1aw library

for estafa against Pan, who was represented

by Respondent. The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J- Commissioner San Juan maintained that the
51990, was assigned to Assistant Manila City collection suit with damages had been filed
Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa
subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary case, in which respondent’s client was the
investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998. The defendant. There was no need to implead
latter neither appeared on the two scheduled complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had
hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, never participated in the business transactions
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |2

between Pan and Xu. Improper and highly in the manner contrary to law, morals and public
questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor policy, resulting to the arrest of said plaintiff and
and complainant in the civil case instituted by causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]" 17
respondent on the alleged prodding of his client.
Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainants and We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the
Prosecutor Salanga. Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper
remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that
Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had the civil action was intended to gain leverage
no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and against the estafa case. If respondent or his client
complainant in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing, did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution,
respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 they should have used the proper procedural and
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP administrative remedies. Respondent could have
adopted the investigating commissioner’s gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion for
recommendation for his suspension from the Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of
practice of law for two (2) years. Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an information
for estafa.
This Court’s Ruling
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available
to him if he could show that the estafa case was
We agree with the IBP’s recommendation. filed without basis. Moreover, he could have
instituted disbarment proceedings against
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and lawyer, respondent should have advised his client of
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. 15 the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain the civil case had no justification.
obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the
legal profession, they must conduct themselves The lack of involvement of complainant and
honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction
of Professional Responsibility provides that" [a] subject of the collection suit shows that there was
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and that respondent took the estafa case as a personal
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing affront and used the civil case as a tool to return
counsel." 
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions
demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim
Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the
Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the "collection parties according to law, not to harass them. 18
of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an
unregistered business venture." It had originally Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A
modified to include complainant and Prosecutor great part of their comfort, as well as of their
Salanga. success at the bar, depends upon their relations
with their professional brethren. Since they deal
The Amended and Supplemental Complaints 16 constantly with each other, they must treat one
alleged the following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling
between clients should not influence counsels in
"27. The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro their conduct and demeanor toward each other.
Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused and Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and
failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract
the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan from the dignity of the legal profession, 19 but also
due process by violating his rights under the Rules constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to
on preliminary investigations; he also falsely made disciplinary action.
a Certification under oath that preliminary
investigation was duly conducted and plaintiff (was) Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law
duly informed of the charges against him but did practitioners not to "wittingly or willingly promote or
not answer; he maliciously and . . . partially ruled sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give
that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal aid nor consent to the same."
cralaw virtua1aw library

Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien

Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted
fatally defective and null and void; . . .; in impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While
"28. Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their
plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and motion clients, their office does not permit violation of the
to defer for the valid grounds stated therein law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. 20 Their
deliberately refused to correct his errors and rendition of improper service invites stern and just
consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the
invalid information and warrant of arrest. honor of their profession and the best interests of
their clients when they render service or give advice
"29. Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that that meets the strictest principles of moral law. 21
the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless connived
with the latter to harass and extort money from The highest reward that can be bestowed on
plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal prosecution lawyers in the esteem of their professional brethren.
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |3

This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily replied, "It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the
created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is said requirement."
born of sharp contests and thrives despite
conflicting interests. It emanates solely from Respondent then answered, "You mean to say it is
integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable not your duty to remand the record of the case?"
performance of professional duty. 22 Complainant responded, "No, Sir, I mean, it's not
our duty to notify you that you have to submit a
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged copy of the Court of Appeals' decision." Respondent
and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from angrily declared in Ilocano, "Kayat mo nga saw-en,
the practice of law, effectively immediately. awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?"  ("You mean to say
you don't care anymore? Is that the way it is?") He
SO ORDERED. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

then turned and left the office, banging the door on

his way out to show his anger. The banging of the
door was so loud it was heard by the people at the
adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was
[A.C. NO. 6396. October 25, 2005]
taking place.4
ROSALIE DALLONG-
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the
GALICINAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. VIRGIL R.
office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at
CASTRO, Respondent.
complainant and shouted, "Ukinnan, no adda ti
unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak
RESOLUTION ah!"  ("Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill
feelings against my client, don't turn your ire on
TINGA, J.: me!") Complainant was shocked at respondent's
words but still managed to reply, "I don't even know
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who your client, Sir." Respondent left the office and as
hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court. Members of he passed by complainant's window, he again
the bar decorum must at all times comfort shouted, "Ukinnam nga babai!"  ("Vulva of your
themselves in a manner befitting their noble mother, you woman!")5
profession.
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the incident, as it happened in her office of which she
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff.
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and
with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint- command full respect from her staff.6
Affidavit1 with supporting documents2 against
respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days after the
Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule incident, was supported by an Affidavit7 signed by
7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who
Professional Responsibility. 3 The charge in the witnessed the incident. The Affidavit narrated the
complaint is summed up as follows: same incident as witnessed by the said employees.
A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner Evidence was filed by complainant on 25 September
and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. 2003.8
On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant's
office to inquire whether the complete records of On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued
Civil Case No. 784, entitled  Sps. Crispino Castillano an Order9 requiring respondent to submit his answer
v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin, to the complaint. Respondent submitted
had already been remanded to the court of origin, his Compliance10 dated 18 June 2003. Respondent
MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in
Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not Civil Case No. 847, entitled Sps. Federico Castillano,
the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et al.,  filed with the
No. 784. RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He learned of the
finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
Complainant informed respondent that the record G.R. No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847
had not yet been transmitted since a certified true before the lower court. Prior to the incident, he
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should went to the office of the complainant to request for
first be presented to serve as basis for the the transmittal of the records of the case to the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To MCTC and the complainant reassured him of the
this respondent retorted scornfully, "Who will certify same.
the Court of Appeals' Decision, the Court of
Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go Respondent admits having inquired about the status
to Manila to get a certified true copy?" Surprised at of the transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003.
this outburst, complainant replied, "Sir, it's in the However, he has no explanation as to what
Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the transpired on that day. Instead, he narrates that on
party you claim to be representing." Respondent 25 May 2003, twelve days after the incident, the
then replied, "Then you should have notified me of records had not yet been transmitted, and he
the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and subsequently learned that these records were
I have been frequenting your office since then, but returned to the court of origin.
you never bothered to notify me." Complainant
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |4

The hearing for the administrative complaint before As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco,16 respondent
the CBD was set on 25 September 2003 by the ought to have realized that this sort of public
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. behavior can only bring down the legal profession in
However, on said date, only complainant appeared. the public estimation and erode public respect for
The latter also moved that the case be submitted it.17 These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule
for resolution.11 Respondent later on filed 8.01, to wit:
a Manifestation stating that the reason for his non-
appearance was because he was still recuperating Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
from physical injuries and that he was not mentally that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law,
fit to prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle now shall he, whether in public or private life
was rained with bullets on 19 August 2003. He also behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
expressed his public apology to the complainant in legal profession.
the same Manifestation.12
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
Complainant filed a Manifestation  expressing her courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
desire not to appear on the next hearing date in professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
view of respondent's public apology, adding that tactics against opposing counsel.
respondent personally and humbly asked for
forgiveness which she accepted.13
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that or otherwise improper.
respondent be reprimanded and warned that any
other complaint for breach of his professional duties
Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
shall be dealt with more severely.14 The IBP
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
adopting and approving the recommendation of the
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound
Investigating Commissioner.15
to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They
must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards
At the onset, it should be noted that respondent each other and otherwise conduct themselves
was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. without reproach at all times.18
Had he been counsel of record, it would have been
easy for him to present the required certified true
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He
Commissioner, respondent did not categorically
need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified
deny the charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave
true copy of the decision since the Court of Appeals
a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case
furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a
as well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.
duplicate original or certified true copy of its
decision.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-
Affidavit that respondent's uncharacteristic behavior
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in
was not an isolated incident. He has supposedly
the case when its records were already transmitted
done the same to Attys. Abraham Johnny G.
to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel
Asuncion and Temmy Lambino, the latter having
of record and there being no authorization from
filed a case against respondent pending before this
either the parties to represent them, respondent
Court.19 We, however, cannot acknowledge such
had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity
of such claim. No affidavits to that effect were
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility submitted by either Atty. Asuncion or Atty.
states: Lambino.

Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be
encroach upon the professional employment of tempered owing to the fact that respondent had
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any apologized to the complainant and the latter had
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice accepted it. This is not to say, however, that
and assistance to those seeking relief against respondent should be absolved from his actuations.
unfaithful or neglectful counsel. People are accountable for the consequences of the
things they say and do even if they repent
Through his acts of constantly checking the afterwards. The fact remains that things done
transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal taken back. Hence, he should bear the
functions of the counsel of record of that case. It consequences of his actions.
does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem
relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or
rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp
voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It
most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill- emanates solely from integrity, character, brains
mannered but also unbecoming considering that he and skills in the honorable performance of
did all these to a woman and in front of her professional duty.20
subordinates.
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |5

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is he would send me out of the PAO, what an idiot.)
hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND Then, upon seeing complainant, respondent pointed
(P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar his finger at him and repeated his statement for the
infraction with be dealt with more severely. Let a other people in the office to hear. At this point,
copy of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant according to complainant, he confronted respondent
for appropriate annotation in the record of the Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to
respondent. leave the office if he had no business there.
Complainant said respondent resented this and
SO ORDERED. started hurling invectives at him. According to
complainant, respondent even took a menacing
stance towards him.

This caused a commotion in the office. Atty. Pepin

A. C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002 Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the Chief of the
Probation Office, tried to pacify respondent
ANTONIO A. Pefianco. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to
ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO take respondent out of the office, but before they
PEFIANCO, respondent. could do so, respondent tried to attack complainant
and even shouted at him, Gago ka! (Youre stupid!)
DECISION Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off
respondents blow and complainant was not harmed.
MENDOZA, J.:
Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty.
Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty.
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco
Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat
for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for
and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
using improper and offensive language and
threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent
Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman,
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the
whose husband had been murdered, moved him
incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
and prompted him to take up her defense. He said
Attorneys Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged
that he resented the fact that complainant had
that on May 18, 2000, while Atty. Ramon Salvani III
ordered an employee, Napoleon Labonete, to put a
was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys
sign outside prohibiting standbys from hanging
Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose,
round in the Public Attorneys Office.
Antique, a woman approached them. Complainant
saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the
group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty.
amicably as a hearing was taking place in another Salvani concerning the womans case, complainant,
room. At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano with his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to
Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and get out of the Public Attorneys Office. He claimed
shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying, Nga- that two security guards also came, and
a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente complainant ordered them to take respondent out of
para mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle the office. Contrary to complainants claims,
that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he however, respondent said that it was complainant
will realize his mistake.) who moved to punch him and shout at him, Gago
ka! (Youre stupid!)
Complainant said he was surprised at respondent
Pefiancos outburst and asked him to cool off, but Prior to the filing of the present complaint,
respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani. respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of
Atty. Salvani tried to explain to respondent that it the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal
was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of complaint against complainant. However, the
the criminal case could be settled because she was complaint was dismissed by the said office.
no longer interested in prosecuting the same.
Respondent refused to listen and instead continued The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
to scold Atty. Salvani and the latters client. Bar of the Philippines found that respondent
committed the acts alleged in the complaint and
As head of the Office, complainant approached that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
respondent and asked him to take it easy and leave Responsibility. The Committee noted that
Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at respondent failed not only to deny the accusations
first listened, but shortly after he again started against him but also to give any explanation for his
shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any actions. For this reason, it recommended that
scene with respondent, complainant went inside his respondent be reprimanded and warned that
office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity severely in the future.
in the Public Attorneys Office.
We find the recommendation of the IBP Committee
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a on Bar Discipline to be well taken.
hearing, but when he came back he heard
respondent Pefianco saying: Nagsiling si Atty. The evidence on record indeed shows that it was
Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO, respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in
buyon nga klase ka tawo. (Atty. Alcantara said that question. The affidavits of several disinterested
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |6

persons confirm complainants allegation that Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a
respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives violation of the Code of Professional Ethics,
at him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
hands on him (complainant).
"A lawyer should not in any way communicate
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional upon the subject of controversy with a party
Responsibility1 admonishes lawyers to conduct represented by counsel, much less should he
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor undertake to negotiate or compromise the
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound matter with him, but should only deal with his
to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most
must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each particularly to avoid everything that may tend
other and otherwise conduct themselves without to mislead a party not represented by counsel
reproach at all times.2cräläwvirtualibräry and he should not undertake to advise him as
to law."
In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in
which he had no right to do so caused the untoward Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint
incident. He had no right to demand an explanation against the lawyers comprising the
from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices,
not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C.
fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V.
the latter insisted on his view about the case. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some
Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the expelled students from the AMA Computer
woman whose husband had been murdered as she College ("AMACC"), in an action for the
was pleading for the settlement of her case because Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
she needed the money. Be that as it may, Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil
respondent should realize that what he thought was Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial
righteous did not give him the right to demand that Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that
Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the accused respondents, then counsel for the defendants,
in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. procured and effected on separate occasions,
Even when he was being pacified, respondent did without his knowledge, compromise
not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements")
who tried to calm him down. Two of the witnesses, with four of his clients in the aforementioned
Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went to civil case which, in effect, required them to
the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the waive all kinds of claims they might have had
commotion, and two guards at the Hall of Justice, against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to
who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
from his verbal rampage. Respondent ought to have proceedings filed against it. Complainant
realized that this sort of public behavior can only averred that such an act of respondents was
bring down the legal profession in the public unbecoming of any member of the legal
estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever profession warranting either disbarment or
moral righteousness respondent had was negated suspension from the practice of law.
by the way he chose to express his indignation. An
injustice cannot be righted by another injustice. In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan
acknowledged that not one of his co-
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found respondents had taken part in the negotiation,
GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of discussion, formulation, or execution of the
Professional Responsibility and, considering this to various Re-Admission Agreements complained
be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of and were, in fact, no longer connected at
of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning the time with the Pangulayan and Associates
that similar action in the future will be sanctioned Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements, he
more severely. claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal
of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were executed
for the sole purpose of effecting the
SO ORDERED.
settlement of an administrative case involving
nine students of AMACC who were expelled
therefrom upon the recommendation of the
Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students,
A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000 namely, Ian Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo,
Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon,
Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A.
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant, v. ATTYS.
Santiago, Michael Ejercito, and Cleo B.
LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D.
Villareiz,, were all members of the Editorial
BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and
Board of DATALINE, who apparently had
HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN
caused to be published some objectionable
AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, Respondents.
features or articles in the paper. The 3-
member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was
D E C I S IO N immediately convened, and after a series of
hearings, it found the students guilty of the
VITUG, J.:JVITUG use of indecent language and unauthorized
use of the student publication funds. The body
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |7

recommended the penalty of expulsion against proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with

the erring students. them and their parents without at the very
least communicating the matter to their
The denial of the appeal made by the students lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel
to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC President, of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This
gave rise to the commencement of Civil Case failure of respondent, whether by design or
No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 before because of oversight, is an inexcusable
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon violation of the canons of professional ethics
City. While the civil case was still pending, and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a
letters of apology and Re-Admission colleague. Respondent fell short of the
Agreements were separately executed by demands required of him as a lawyer and as a
and/or in behalf of some of the expelled member of the Bar.
students, to wit: Letter of Apology, dated 27
May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by The allegation that the context of the Re-
his mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of Admission Agreements centers only on the
22 June 1997 with the AMACC President; letter administrative aspect of the controversy is
of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. belied by the Manifestation 1 which, among
Veronica B. De Leon for her daughter Melyda other things, explicitly contained the following
B. De Leon and Re-Admission Agreement of 09 stipulation; viz:
May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of
apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven, "1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the
assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC parents/guardian already executed a Re-
President; letter of apology, dated 22 Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re- AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for
Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997 with violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
the AMACC President; and letter of apology, MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and
dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito, agreed among others to terminate all civil,
assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission criminal and administrative proceedings which
Agreement of 23 January 1997 with the they may have against the AMACC arising from
AMACC President. their previous dismissal.

Following the execution of the letters of "x x x......x x x......x x x

apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a
Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed
"3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an
with the trial court where the civil case was
Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the
Q-97-30549 will by filed them."
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for
defendant AMACC. A copy of the manifestation
was furnished complainant. In his Resolution, The Court can only thus concur with the IBP
dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Investigating Commission and the IBP Board
Quezon City Regional Trial Court thereupon of Governors in their findings; nevertheless,
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. the recommended six-month suspension
would appear to be somewhat too harsh a
penalty given the circumstances and the
On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of
explanation of respondent.
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP")
passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163, thus:
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado
C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
MONTHS effective immediately upon his
and Recommendation of the Investigating
receipt of this decision. The case against the
Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
other respondents is DISMISSED for
herein made part of this Resolution/Decision
insufficiency of evidence.
as Annex 'A,' and, finding the recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules, with an Let a copy of this decision be entered in the
amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is personal record of respondent as an attorney
suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) and as a member of the Bar, and furnished the
MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
DISMISSAL of the case against the other Philippines and the Court Administrator for
Respondents for they did not take part in the circulation to all courts in the country.
negotiation of the case."
SO ORDERED.
It would appear that when the individual
letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were formalized, complainant was
by then already the retained counsel for ATTY. IRENEO L. Adm. Case No. 5910
plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent TORRES and MRS.
Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. NATIVIDAD  
Although aware that the students were
CELESTINO,
represented by counsel, respondent attorney
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |8

destruction or concealment of UEFA's documents

Complainants, Present : and some other acts tending to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon their
    persons. [5] Portions of the questioned motion
read:
  PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
 
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, and
Undersigned attorney would like to manifest '
  GARCIA, JJ. just so it can not be said later on that he
kept mum on the matter ' that when
individual respondents-appellants realized
  Promulgated:
that an audit of Union funds was looming, it
appears that they decided to destroy or
  ' conceal documents as demonstrated by an
'Incident Report Re Robbery dated May 6,
2002 (a copy just recently secured by the
ATTY. JOSE September 21, 2005 undersigned), attached hereto as Annex 'A',
where the police investigator stated that 'no
CONCEPCION forcible entry was noted by him but 'that air
JAVIER, condition on the respective rooms were (sic)
slightly move (sic) to mislead that suspect as
the same as their point of entry.[] The police
Respondent. officers stated that 'no cash of (sic) money
were stolen but instead claimed that still
xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xx undetermined documents/important papers
were stolen by the suspects.
 
DECISION
This brings to mind the United States case
against Andersen officials who shredded
CARPIO MORALES, J.: documents related to the Enron scandal
when they thought nobody was looking. As
in the Andersen/Enron case, the individual
By complaint [1] dated November 26, 2002, Atty. respondents-appellants in the instant case
Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino knew that the law was going to come
knocking at their door, asking a lot [of]
(complainants) charge Atty. Jose Concepcion
questions about financial matters.
Javier (respondent) for malpractice, gross  
misconduct in office as an attorney and/or From the undersigned's standpoint, the
alleged 'robbery of 'still undetermined
violation of the lawyer's oath. documents/papers' was an inside job as
investigation has shown that there is no
 The charges stemmed from the evidence of forced entry. Besides, it would
be a cinch to establish a motive by individual
statements/remarks made by respondent in the respondents-appellants Torres and Celestino
pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all to destroy documents related to the audit
ordered by Regional Director Alex E. Maraan.
funds of the University of the East Faculty In any event, the undersigned thinks that
Association (UEFA), as counsel for the therein the legal process should go on. Lumang
petitioners UEFA then Treasurer Rosamarie gimmick na 'yang 'robbery ng mga
evidensya. They may try to cover up the
Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President 'looting of union funds, but there is such a
Eleonor Javier, before the Bureau of Labor thing as secondary evidence, not to mention
the power of this Honorable Office to
Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and
issue subpoenas  even to the union's
Employment (DOLE) against herein complainants, depositary banks. [6] (Underscoring
docketed as NCR-OD-0105-004-LRD (audit supplied)
case), [2] and from the pleadings filed by
respondent in another labor case as counsel for Complainants aver that respondent violated the
the one hundred seventy six (176) faculty attorney's oath that he 'obey the laws' and 'do no
members of the University of the East falsehood, the Code of Professional Responsibility
complainants against herein complainant Atty. particularly Rule 10.01 thereof, and Rule 138,
Ireneo L. Torres, et al.,  [3] docketed as NCR-0D- specifically paragraph 20 (f) of the Rules of Court
0201-0005-LRD (attorney's fees case). [4] for directly pointing to them as the persons who
intentionally committed the robbery at the UEFA
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of office, and for citing the Andersen/Enron case
action against respondent. which is irrelevant, impertinent, and immaterial
to the subject of quasi-judicial inquiry. [7]
The first cause of action is based on respondent's
'Urgent Motion to Expedite with Manifestation and  As second cause of action, complainants allege
Reiteration of Position (Motion to Expedite) filed that in the attorney's fees case, respondent, in
in the audit case which complainants allege his 'Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez)
contained statements which are absolutely false, Answer/Comment filed before the DOLE, used
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and
crimes of robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds,
 PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |9

improper, [8] inconsistent with the character of with no substantial improvements, with

uncertain amount of her expenses, because
an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. [9] she removed/concealed all the financial
records of the UEFA during her term. . . I
and the other lawyers/teachers denounced
 As third/last cause of action, complainants quote her unlawful deduction of 10% attorney's
respondent's statement in the aforesaid Reply, to fees from the small backwages received by
wit: the teachers on April 28, 1993 although
there was actually no lawyer who worked for
itand there was no Board nor General
  Membership Assembly Resolutions passedthe
assembly [Nov. 24, 2001] was apparently
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to irked to Mrs. Eleanor Javier when she was
hear notaries public asking their sons, wives, booed while talking on the floor, like a
girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a confused gabble (sic) [18]
notarial office and sign for them. These  
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits,  
administer oaths and certify documents. x x
x, [10]
 
Not wanting to allow his wife to be maligned by
  Atty. Torres, respondent admits having responded
with a counter-attack in his 'Reply to Respondents
and allege that the statement is demeaning to the (Torres and Marquez)
integrity of the legal profession, 'uncalled for and Answer/Comment [19] wherein he stated:
deserve[s] censure, [as] the same might shrink
the degree of confidence and trust reposed by the  
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial What kind of a lawyer is this Atty. Torres?
document. [11] The undersigned feels that Atty. Torres just
cannot kick the habit of injecting immaterial,
irrelevant, and impertinent matters in his
By his Comment, respondent candidly professes pleadings. More than that, he lies through
his teeth. The undersigned thinks that if he
that he was angry [12] while he was preparing his
has any common sense at all he should shut
'Motion to Expedite in the audit case, it having up about his accusation  that Prof. Javier
come to his knowledge that the UEFA office had spent more than half a million pesos for
negotiation expensesshe obtained only P2-
been burglarized and complainant Atty. Torres increase in union members salary, etc.
had been spreading reports and rumors because of the pendency of the damage suit
implicating his clients including his wife to the against him on this score. He easily forgets
the sad chapter of his life as a practitioner
burglary. [13] when he lost out to Prof. Javier in the
petition for audit (Case No. NCR-OD-M-9401-
004) which he filed to gain 'pogi points prior
Respondent stresses that he felt that it was his
to the UEFA election in 1994. [20]
duty to inform the BLR of the loss of the vital  
documents so that the resolution of the pending xxx
 
motion for reconsideration filed by complainants To repeat, if respondent Atty. Torres has any
would be expedited; [14] and that the information common sense at all, he should stop making
regarding the burglary and his use of irrelevant, libelous and impertinent
allegations in his pleadings. This means
the Andersen/Enron case as a figure of speech changing his 'standard tactic of skirting the
were relevant in drawing a link between the main issues by injecting a web or a maze of
sham, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous
burglary and the audit ' the burglary having
matters. [21] (Underscoring supplied)
rendered the complete implementation of the  
audit unattainable. [15]  

With respect to the attorney's fees case, Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring
respondent claims that Atty. Torres did not in his to the BLR's attention that Atty. Torres had the
Answer confront the issues thereof but instead habit of hurling baseless accusations against his
'mock[ed] his wife and fabricat[ed] and wife to embarrass her, including one for unjust
distort[ed] realities' [16] by including malicious, vexation and another for collection and damages
libelous and impertinent statements and both of which were dismissed after trial on the
accusations against his wife which exasperated merits, thus prompting him to state that 'these
him. [17] A portion of Atty. Torres' Answer in the dismissed cases indubitably indicate Atty. Torres'
attorney's fees case reads: pattern of mental dishonesty. [22]

x x x in her incumbency as President of the Respondent further claims that in his Answer in
UEFA for 12 years (1987-1999) she got only
about P2.00/hr CBA increase which took
the same attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres
effect only [in] 1994, with no other accused his client, Prof. Maguigad, of forging the
substantial improvements of the teacher's signature of a notary public and of 'deliberately
benefits, and yet she spent for more than
half a million negotiation expenses from the us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax
UEFA's funds. Her 1994-1999 CBA was only Certificate in order to justify the dismissal of the
a carbon copy of her old 1989-1994 CBA
 P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 10

case against him (Atty. Torres); [23] and that He should know or ought to know that the
allegations in petitioners' pleading are
Atty. Torres continued harassing his clients absolutely privileged because the said
including his wife by filing baseless complaints for allegations or statements are relevant to the
falsification of public document. [24] Hence, in issues. [26] (Underscoring supplied)
 
defense of his clients, the following statements in  
his Reply:
The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated
  Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Respondent further concluded that lead
petitioner Prof. Maguigad 'falsified the said
Responsibility for using inappropriate and
petition by causing it to appear that he offensive remarks in his pleadings.
participated in the falsification when he did
not in truth and in fact participate
thereat . . . obviously oblivious of the The pertinent portions of the Investigating
obvious that it is highly improbable for Prof. Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
Maguigad to have forged the signature of the
read:
notary public. If he intended to forge it, what
was the big idea of doing so? To save Fifty
Pesos (P50.00) for notarial fee? Needless to
say, the allegation that lead (sic) petitioner  
Maguigad used a falsified Com. Tax Cert. is
patently unfounded and malicious. Respondent admits that he was angry when
  he wrote the Manifestationand alleges that
But that is not all. Respondents went further Complainant implicated his wife in a
and charged Profs. Mendoza, Espiritu, burglary. Moreover, Respondent alleges that
Ramirez and Javier with the same crime of Complainant has been 'engaged in
falsification of public document . . . 'by intimidating and harassing his wife.
causing it to appear that Rogelio Maguigad  
had indeed participated in the act of It appears that herein Complainant and
verifying/subscribing and swearing the herein Respondent's wife have had a series
subject petition before notary public Atty. of charges and counter-charges filed against
Jorge M. Ventayen, when in truth and in fact each other. Both parties being protagonists
he did not participate thereat. in the intramurals within the University of
  the East Faculty Association (UEFA). Herein
To the mind of the undersigned, this is the Complainant is the President of the UEFA
height of irresponsibility, coming as it does whereas Respondent's wife was the former
from a member of the Philippine Bar. There President of UEFA. Nevertheless, we shall
is no evidence to charge them with treat this matter of charges and counter-
falsification of public document, i.e. the charges filed, which involved the UEFA, as
'verification appended to the present extraneous, peripheral, if not outright
petition. They did not even sign it. The crime irrelevant to the issue at hand.
imputed is clearly bereft of merit. Frankly,  
the undersigned thinks that even a dim- xxx
witted first-year law student would not oblige Clearly, [r]espondent's primordial reason for
with such a very serious charge. the offensive remark stated in his pleadings
  was his emotional reaction in view of the fact
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyer[s] to that herein Complainant was in a legal
hear notaries public asking their sons, wives, dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be
girlfriends, nephews, etc. to 'operate a sustained. Indeed, the remarks quoted
notarial office and sign for them. These above are offensive and inappropriate. That
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits, the Respondent is representing his wife is
administer oaths, and certify documents. not at all an excuse. [27] (Underscoring
Believing that the said 'veification was signed supplied)
by an impostor-relative of the notary public  
[Atty. Jorge M. Ventayan] through no fault of  
his client, Prof. Maguigad, the undersigned
sought the assistance of the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI). On May 2, 2002, an Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner
NBI agent called up the undersigned to
inform him that he arrested in the area near
recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
UE one Tancredo E. Ventayen whom he
caught in flagrante delicto notarizing an
affidavit of loss and feigning to be Atty. Jorge The Board of Governors of the Integrated
M. Ventayen, supposedly his uncle. [25]
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), by
xxx Resolution [28] of October 7, 2004,
adopted and approved the Report and
Petitioners devoted so much space in their
answer/comment vainly trying to prove that Recommendation of the Investigating
Profs. Maguigad, Mendoza, Espiritu, Ramirez,
and Javier committed the crime of Commissioner.
falsification of public document reasoning out
that they made 'untruthful statements in the
narration of facts' in the basic petition. The Report of the IBP faulting respondent is well-
  taken but not its recommendation to reprimand
Respondent Torres is a member of the
Philippine Bar. But what law books is he him.
reading?
 
It is well entrenched in Philippine
jurisprudence that for reasons of public
 P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 11

policy, utterances made in the course of which he filed to gain pogi points. Nor

judicial proceedings, including all kinds of respondent's emphasis that Atty. Torres is of the
pleadings, petitions and motions, are habit of hurling baseless accusations against his
absolutely privileged so long as they wife by stating that the dismissal of the cases
are pertinent and relevant to the subject against his wife, of which Atty. Torres was the
inquiry, however false or malicious they complainant, indubitably indicate Atty. Torres'
may be. [29] pattern of mental dishonesty.

   

The requirements of materiality and relevancy The issue in the attorney's fees case was whether
are imposed so that the protection given to the 10% attorney's fees 'checked off from the
individuals in the interest of an efficient initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is
administration of justice may not be abused as a legal. Clearly, the above-quoted statements of
cloak from beneath which private malice may be respondent in the immediately preceding
gratified. [30] If the pleader goes beyond the paragraph cannot be said to be relevant or
requirements of the statute and alleges an pertinent to the issue. That Atty. Torres may have
irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his conducted himself improperly is not a justification
privilege. [31] for respondent to be relieved from observing
professional conduct in his relations with Atty.
A matter, however, to which the privilege does Torres.
not extend must be so palpably wanting in
relation to the subject matter of the controversy Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever
that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy may be the ill-feeling existing between clients
or impropriety. [32] That matter alleged in a should not be allowed to influence counsel in their
pleading need not be in every case material to conduct toward each other or toward suitors in
the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, the case. [34]
however, be legitimately related thereto, or
so pertinent to the subject of the controversy In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was
that it may become the subject of inquiry in the acting as counsel for himself as respondent and
course of the trial. [33] complainant was acting as counsel for his wife as
complainant. Although it is understandable, if not
The first cause of action of complainants is based justifiable, that in the defense of one's clients -
on respondent's allegation in his 'Motion to especially of one's wife or of one's self, the zeal in
Expedite that a burglary of the UEFA office took so doing may be carried out to the point of undue
place, and his imputation to complainants of a skepticism and doubts as to the motives of
plausible motive for carrying out the burglary ' opposing counsel, the spectacle presented by two
the concealment and destruction of vital members of the bar engaged in bickering and
documents relating to the audit. The imputation recrimination is far from edifying, and detract
may be false but it could indeed possibly prompt from the dignity of the legal profession. [35]
the BLR to speed up the resolution of the audit
case. In that light, this Court finds that the first Moreover, in arguing against the dismissal of the
cause of action may not lie. attorney's fees case on the basis of the alleged
forgery of the notary public's signature,
As regards the second cause of action, it appears respondent did not only endeavor to point out
that respondent was irked by Atty. Torres' Answer that Atty. Torres erred in advancing such an
to the complaint in the attorney's fees case argument, but personally attacked Atty. Torres'
wherein he criticized his (respondent's ) wife's mental fitness by stating that 'the undersigned
performance as past President of UEFA. thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law
student would not oblige with such a very serious
This Court does not countenance Atty. Torres' charge, and '[r]espondent Torres is a member of
incorporating in his Answer in the attorney's fees the bar [b]ut what law books is he reading.
case statements such as 'the assembly . . . was
apparently irked by Mrs. Eleonor Javier when she In keeping with the dignity of the legal
was booed while talking on the floor like a profession, a lawyer's language must be dignified
confused gabble (sic). But neither does it and choice of language is important in the
countenance respondent's retaliating statements preparation of pleadings. [36] In the assertion of
like 'what kind of lawyer is Atty. Torres?, 'he lies his client's rights, a lawyer ' even one gifted with
through his teeth, 'if he has any common sense at superior intellect 'is enjoined to rein up his
all he should shut up, and Atty. Torres forgets the temper. [37]
sad chapter of his life as a practitioner when he
lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit
 P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 12

As reflected above, the inclusion of the parties and causes of action of such complaint
derogatory statements by respondent was are completely different from those of the
actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings present complaint.
towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the
mantle of absolute immunity does not extend. WHEREFORE , for employing offensive and
Personal colloquies between counsel which cause improper language in his pleadings, respondent
delay and promote unseemly wrangling should be Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby SUSPENDED from
carefully avoided. [38] the practice of law for One (1) Month, effective
upon receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
  WARNED that any future infraction of a similar
nature shall be dealt with more severely. '
If indeed Atty. Torres filed criminal complaints for
falsification of public documents against Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office
respondent's clients as a scheme to harass them, of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of
they are not without adequate recourse in law, the Philippines, and all courts in the country for
for if they plead for a righteous cause, the course their information and guidance.
of justice will surely tilt in their favor, the courts
being ever vigilant in the protection of a party's SO ORDERED.
rights. [39]

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides: A.C. No. 6672               September 4, 2009

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
  vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
CANON 8 ' A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESSS
AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS Note: Discussed in Canons 2 & 3
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
 
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
 
 

instructs that respondent's arguments in his

pleadings should be gracious to both the court
and opposing counsel and be of such words as
may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. [40] The language vehicle does not run
short of expressions which are emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive. [41]

As to the reference by respondent to the

unfortunate and contemptible practice of notaries
public ' basis of the last cause of action, while it
may detract from the dignity that should
characterize the legal profession and the
solemnity of a notarial document, respondent,
who justifies the same as legitimate defense of
his client who was being accused by Atty. Torres
of forgery, may, given the relevance of the
statement to the subject matter of the pleading,
be given the benefit of the doubt.

Respecting the verified complaint ' Annex 'EJ-

A [42] to the Comment of respondent filed by his
wife, Prof. Eleonor R. Javier, against complainant
Atty. Torres, the same cannot be consolidated
with the present administrative case since the