[A.C. No. 5148.

July 1, 2003]

Atty. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. Atty. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG

JR., respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and
the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as
professionals and members of the bar.
The Case
Before us is a Sworn Complaint filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the
Bar Confidant of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for
violation of his lawyers oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline resolved to suspend him
as follows:
[1]

x x x [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him to the obligation that he
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
nor consent to the same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. In impleading complainant
and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal
ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as well as the above-quoted Canon of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years.
[2]

The Facts
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were
engaged by one Zonggi Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went
awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products
factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in
Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the latter had not established a
fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, making it
necessary for the former to seek legal assistance.
[3]

Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was
represented by respondent. The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned to

Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a subpoena for Pan
to appear for preliminary investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998. The latter neither
appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence,
Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint for estafa against him before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of
Arrest against Pan.
[4]

[5]

[6]

Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest. He also
filed with the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of
money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
[7]

When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that it was Pan who had
decided to institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes. Respondent claimed he would
suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the dismissal of
the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to reach a settlement.
In his Comment dated January 27, 2000, respondent argued that he had shown no
disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884. He claimed
that there was no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it had been
instituted only to exact vengeance. He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as
an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had committed in
conducting the criminal investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had resolved to file
the estafa case despite the pendency of Pans Motion for an Opportunity to Submit
Counter-Affidavits and Evidence, of the appeal to the justice secretary, and of the
Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings.
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

On the other hand, complainant was impleaded, because he allegedly connived with
his client (Xu) in filing the estafa case, which the former knew fully well was
baseless. According to respondent, the irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in
the criminal investigation and complainants connivance therein were discovered only after
the institution of the collection suit.
The Third Division of this Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report
and recommendation. Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29,
2002 Resolution.
[12]

[13]

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom
the case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and report, averred that complainant
and Prosecutor Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884 on the sole basis of
the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had filed against respondents client. In his
[14]

Comment, respondent himself claimed that the reason x x x was x x x the irregularities
of the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent damages.
Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been
filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondents client
was the defendant. There was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salanga,
since they had never participated in the business transactions between Pan and
Xu. Improper and highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and
complainant in the civil case instituted by respondent on the alleged prodding of his
client. Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor
Salanga and complainant in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his
oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted
the investigating commissioners recommendation for his suspension from the practice of
law for two (2) years.
This Courts Ruling
We agree with the IBPs recommendation.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by
law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
[15]

Respondents actions do not measure up to this Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for
the collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an unregistered business
venture. It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later modified to include
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
The Amended and Supplemental Complaints alleged the following:
[16]

27. The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused
and failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia
Hsien Pan due process by violating his rights under the Rules on preliminary investigations; he also
falsely made a Certification under oath that preliminary investigation was duly conducted and
plaintiff [was] duly informed of the charges against him but did not answer; he maliciously and x x
x partially ruled that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal Information for estafa against

plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null
and void; x x x;
28. Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and
motion to defer for the valid grounds stated therein deliberately refused to correct his errors and
consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an invalid information and warrant of arrest.
29. Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless
connived with the latter to harass and extort money from plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal
prosecution in the manner contrary to law, morals and public policy, resulting to the arrest of said
plaintiff and causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]
[17]

We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort
to the proper remedies strengthen complainants allegation that the civil action was
intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. If respondent or his client did not agree
with Prosecutor Salangas resolution, they should have used the proper procedural and
administrative remedies. Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a
Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salangas
decision to file an information for estafa.
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the
estafa case was filed without basis. Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment
proceedings against complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had
conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer, respondent should have advised his client of the
availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had no justification.
The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business
transaction subject of the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion
in that case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and
used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions
demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render
justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.
[18]

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity
and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends
upon their relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each
other, they must treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between
clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each
other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers
not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly
unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
[19]

Furthermore, the Lawyers Oath exhorts law practitioners not to wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same.
Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and
Prosecutor Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire
devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or
any manner of fraud or chicanery. Their rendition of improper service invites stern and
just condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the
best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the
strictest principles of moral law.
[20]

[21]

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their
professional brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained
by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contests and thrives despite conflicting
interests. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable
performance of professional duty.
[22]

WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for

two (2) years from the practice of law, effective immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.

SECOND DIVISION
JOSE C. SABERON,

A.C. No. 6567

Complainant,
Present:

- versus -

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:

ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG,

Respondent.

April 16, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
In a Complaint[1] filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant, this Court, complainant
Jose C. Saberon (complainant) charged Atty. Fernando T. Larong (respondent) of grave
misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition[2] against Surigaonon Rural Banking
Corporation (the bank) and Alfredo Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the majority
stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of the banks registration and franchise. The Petition,
he said, arose from the banks and/or Bonpins refusal to return various checks and land titles,
which were given to secure a loan obtained by his (complainants) wife, despite alleged full
payment of the loan and interests.
Respondent, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an Answer
with Affirmative Defenses[3] to the Petition stating, inter alia,
5. That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff [herein
complainant Jose C. Saberon] and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for
financial gain
x x x x.[4] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Respondent made statements of the same tenor in his Rejoinder[5] to complainants Reply.
Finding the aforementioned statements to be totally malicious, viscous [sic] and bereft
of any factual or legal basis, complainant filed the present complaint.
Complainant contends that he filed the Petition before the BSP in the legitimate exercise
of his constitutional right to seek redress of his grievances; and that respondent, as in-house
counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, was fully aware that the loan obtained by his
(complainants) wife in behalf of her children had been paid in full, hence, there was no more
reason to continue holding the collaterals.
Complainant adds that respondent aided and abetted the infliction of damages upon his
wife and her children who were thus deprived of the use of the mortgaged property.
In his Comment[6] to the present complaint against him, respondent argues that: (1) there
was nothing abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in the way he used the word
blackmail to characterize the suit against his clients; and (2) when a lawyer files a responsive
pleading, he is not in any way aiding or abetting the infliction of damages upon the other party.

By Resolution of March 16, 2005,[7] the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
In his Report and Recommendation dated June 21, 2006,[8] IBP Investigating
Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa held that the word blackmail connotes something sinister
and criminal. Unless the person accused thereof is criminally charged with extortion, he added,
it would be imprudent, if not offensive, to characterize that persons act as blackmail.
Commissioner Funa stressed that a counsel is expected only to present factual arguments
and to anchor his case on the legal merits of his clients claim or defense in line with his duty
under Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as follows:
A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.

Moreover, he noted that in espousing a clients cause, respondent should not state his personal
belief as to the soundness or justice of his case pursuant to Canon 15 [9] of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The Investigating Commissioner also opined that by using words that were unnecessary
and irrelevant to the case, respondent went overboard and crossed the line of professional
conduct. In view thereof, he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross
misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.
By Resolution No. XVII-2007-036 of January 18, 2007,[10] the IBP Board of Governors
disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack of merit.
The Commission on Bar Discipline, by letter of March 26, 2007, transmitted the records
of the case to this Court.[11]
Complainant appealed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors to this Court via a
petition filed on March 7, 2007, under Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B [12] of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Complainant challenges the IBP Board of Governors Resolution as illegal and void ab
initio for violating the mandatory requirements of Section 12(a) of Rule 139-B of the Revised
Rules of Court that the same be reduced to writing, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and
the reasons on which it is based.

Finding the ruling of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent is guilty of grave
misconduct to be in accordance with the evidence, complainant nevertheless submits that the
recommended penalty of suspension should be modified to disbarment. The offense committed
by respondent, he posits, manifests an evil motive and is therefore an infraction involving moral
turpitude.
In his Comment to [the] Petition for Review, respondent states that the administrative
complaint against him is a harassment suit given that it was in his capacity as counsel for the
bank and Bonpin that he filed the Answer objected to by complainant.
Moreover, respondent claims that the purportedly offensive allegation was a statement of
fact which he had backed up with a narration of the chronological incidents and suits filed by
complainant and his wife against his clients. That being the case, he contends that the
allegation made in the Answer must be considered absolutely privileged just like allegations
made in any complaint or initiatory pleading.
Respondent in fact counters that it was complainant himself who had made serious
imputations of wrongdoing against his clients the bank for allegedly being engaged in some
illegal activities, and Bonpin for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino.
Nonetheless, respondent pleads that at the time the allegedly abusive and offensive
language was used, he was only two years into the profession, with nary an intention of
bringing dishonor to it. He admits that because of some infelicities of language, he may have
stirred up complainants indignation for which he asked the latters and this Courts clemency.
In his Reply,[13] complainant counters that respondents Comment reveals the latters
propensity to deliberately state a falsehood; and that respondents claim that the administrative
complaint was a harassing act, deducible from the fact that [it] post-dates a series of suits,
none of which has prospered x x x against the same rural bank and its owner, is bereft of
factual basis.
Complainant goes on to argue that respondent, as counsel for Bonpin, knew of the two
criminal cases he and his wife had filed against Bonpin and, as admitted by respondent, of the
criminal charges against him for libel arising from his imputations of blackmail, extortion or
robbery against him and his wife.
Finally, complainant refuses to accede to respondents entreaty for clemency.
This Court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language
in his pleadings.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:

CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.

To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to
use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.[14]
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. [15] Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive.[16]
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. [17] In keeping with
the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
[18]

It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious statements of respondent were made

not before a court but before the BSP. A similar submission that actuations of and statements
made by lawyers before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are not covered by
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the NLRC not being a court, was struck down
in Lubiano v. Gordolla,[19] thus:
Respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the National Labor
Relations Commission, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound
servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics.[20]
The observation applies with equal force to the case at bar.

Respecting respondents argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before
the BSP were privileged, it suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of
pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of
their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such
remark or comment.[21]
True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have
consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be,
but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.[22] The test of
relevancy has been stated, thus:
x x x. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make alleged
defamatory matters privileged the courts favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter
of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety. In
order that matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case
material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately
related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial x x x. [23]

Granting that the proceedings before the BSP partake of the nature of judicial
proceedings, the ascription of blackmail in the Answer and Rejoinder filed by respondent is
not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP, which
were Bonpins alleged alien citizenship and majority stockholding in the bank. Those issues
were amply discussed in the Answer with Affirmative Defenses without need of the further
allegation that the Petition was another in a series of blackmail suits . . . to coerce the Bank
and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain. Hence, such allegation was unnecessary and uncalled for.
More so, considering that complainant and his wife were well within their rights to file the
cases against the bank and/or Bonpin to protect their interests and seek redress of their
grievances.
Respecting the assailed Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, indeed only a Notice
of Resolution was transmitted to this Court, together with the Records of the case, which
Notice simply stated that on January 18, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution
No. XVII-2007-036 in which it:

RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the Recommendation of the

Investigating Commissioner, and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled
case for lack of merit.

Upon such Notice, it is evident that there is no compliance with the procedural
requirement that the IBP Board of Governors decision shall state clearly and distinctly the
findings of facts or law on which the same is based. Thus Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 12.
Review and decision by the Board of Governors. - (a) Every
case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon
the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The
decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be
promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of
the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

The above requirement serves a very important function not just to inform the parties of
the reason for the decision as would enable them on appeal to point out and object to the
findings with which they are not in agreement, but also to assure the parties that the Board of
Governors has reached the judgment through the process of legal reasoning.[24]
With regard to complainants plea that respondent be disbarred, this Court has
consistently considered disbarment and suspension of an attorney as the most severe forms of
disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only
for duly proven serious administrative charges.[25]
Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not
of a grievous character as to merit respondents disbarment. In light of respondents apologies,
the Court finds it best to temper the penalty for his infraction which, under the circumstances, is
considered simple, rather than grave, misconduct.
WHEREFORE, complainants petition is partly GRANTED. Respondent, Atty.
Fernando T. Larong, is found guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for using intemperate
language. He is FINED P2,000 with a stern WARNING that a repetition of this or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate
annotation in the record of respondent.
SO ORDERED.

[A. C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002]

ANTONIO
A.
ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
PEFIANCO, respondent.

MARIANO

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:

This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member
of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to
assault complainant.
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of
the Public Attorneys Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while
Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) at
the Hall of Justice in San Jose, 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 amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. At this point,
respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty.
Salvani and his client, saying, Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente

para mahibal-an na anang sala.(Why do you settle that case? Have your client
imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.)
Complainant said he was surprised at respondent Pefiancos outburst and asked him
to cool off, but respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani. Atty. Salvani tried to
explain to respondent that it was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of the
criminal case could be settled because she was no longer interested in prosecuting the
same. Respondent refused to listen and instead continued to scold Atty. Salvani and the
latters client.
As head of the Office, complainant approached respondent and asked him to take it
easy and leave Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at first listened, but shortly
after he again started shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any scene with
respondent, complainant went inside his office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside
prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the Public Attorneys Office.
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing, but when he came back
he heard respondent Pefianco saying: Nagsiling si Atty. Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno
ako dya sa PAO, buyon nga klase ka tawo. (Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me
out of the PAO, what an idiot.) Then, upon seeing complainant, respondent pointed his
finger at him and repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear. At this
point, according to complainant, he confronted respondent Pefianco and told him to
observe civility or else to leave the office if he had no business there. Complainant said
respondent resented this and 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 Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the
Chief of the Probation Office, tried to pacify respondent Pefianco. Two guards of the Hall
of Justice came to take respondent out of the office, but before they could do so,
respondent tried to attack complainant and even shouted at him, Gago ka! (Youre
stupid!) Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off respondents blow and complainant
was not harmed.
Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del
Rosario, Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to
corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the
crying woman, whose husband had been murdered, moved him and prompted him to take
up her defense. He said that he resented the fact that complainant had ordered an
employee, Napoleon Labonete, to put a sign outside prohibiting standbys from hanging
round in the Public Attorneys Office.

Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Salvani concerning the womans case,
complainant, with his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public
Attorneys Office. He claimed that two security guards also came, and complainant
ordered them to take respondent out of the office. Contrary to complainants claims,
however, respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch him and shout at
him, Gago ka! (Youre stupid!)
Prior to the filing of the present complaint, respondent Pefianco had filed before the
Office of the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against
complainant. However, the complaint was dismissed by the said office.
The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that
respondent committed the acts alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Committee noted that respondent failed not
only to deny the accusations against him but also to give any explanation for his
actions. For this reason, it recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned
that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the future.
We find the recommendation of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline to be well taken.
The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked
the incident in question. The affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm
complainants allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at him
and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him (complainant).
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are
duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly
and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all
times.
[1]

[2]

In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so

caused the untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty.
Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani
in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about
the case.
Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been
murdered as she was pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the
money. Be that as it may, respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous
did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the
accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. Even when he was being
pacified, respondent did not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those who tried to
calm him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went to

the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the commotion, and two guards at the Hall
of Justice, who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal
rampage. Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only
bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for
it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby
FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action
in the future will be sanctioned more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.