Canon 8

G.R. No. 133090        January 19, 2001

REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING AND ROYAL BECHTEL BUILDERS, INC., petitioners,

vs.
HON. DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, respondent.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March 6, 1998 of the Court of
Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite,
declaring petitioner Rexie Efren A. Bugaring guilty in direct contempt of court.1âwphi1.nêt

The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on December 5, 1996 of Civil
Case NO. 1266-96 entitled "Royal Becthel2 Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz
Alvaran, et al.", for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title, Specific Performance and Damages
with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order in the sala of respondent
judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite.

Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc., the trial court
issued an order on February 27, 1996 directing the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to
annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. Before the Register of
Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order, the defendant Spouses Alvaran on
April 15, 1996, filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. On July 19, 1996, petitioner, the newly appointed
counsel of Royal Bechtel Builders, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens. On
August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court. Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration, which was opposed by the defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed an
Urgent Motion to Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and Motion for
Contempt of Court.3

During the hearing of the motion for contempt of court held on December 5, 1996, the following
incident transpired:

ATTY. For the plaintiff, your Honor, we are ready.

BUGARING:
ATTY. CORDERO: Same appearance for the defendant, your Honor.
ATTY. Your Honor please, we are ready with respect to the prosecution of our motion for
BUGARING: contempt, your Honor. May we know from the record if the Register of Deeds is
properly notified for today's hearing.
COURT: Will you call on the Register of Deeds.
INTERPRETER: Atty. Diosdado Concepcion, He is here, your Honor.
ATTY. We are ready, your Honor.
BUGARING:
COURT: There is a motion for contempt in connection with the order of this Court which
directed your office to register lis pendens of the complaint in connection with this
case of Royal Becthel Builder, Inc. versus spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz
 Alvaran, et al.
ATTY. Your Honor, I just received this morning at ten o'clock [in the morning] the
CONCEPCION: subpoena.
ATTY. May we put in on record that as early as November 6, 1996, the Office of the
BUGARING: Register of Deeds was furnished with a copy of our motion, your Honor please,
and the record will bear it out. Until now they did not file any answer, opposition or
pleadings or pleadings with respect to this motion.
ATTY. Well I was not informed because I am not the Register of Deeds. I am only the
CONCEPCION: Deputy Register of Deeds and I was not informed by the receiving clerk of our
office regarding this case. As a matter of fact I was surprised when I received this
morning the subpoena, your Honor.
ATTY. Your Honor please, may we put that on record that the manifestation of the
BUGARING: respondent that he was not informed.
COURT: That is recorded. This is a Court of record and everything that you say here is
recorded.
ATTY. Yes your Honor please, we know that but we want to be specific because we will
BUGARING: be [filing] a case against this receiving clerk who did not [inform] him your Honor
please, with this manifestation of the Deputy of the Register of Deeds that is
irregularity in the performance of the official duty of the clerk not to inform the
parties concerned.
COURT: Counsel, the Court would like to find out who this fellow who is taking the video
recording at this proceedings. There is no permission from this Court that such
proceedings should be taken.
ATTY. Your Honor, my Assistant. I did not advise him to take a video he just
BUGARING: accompanied me this morning.
COURT: Right, but the video recording is prepared process and you should secure the
permission of this Court.
ATTY. Actually, I did not instruct him to take some video tape.
BUGARING:
COURT: Why would he be bringing camera if you did not give him the go signal that shots
should be done.
ATTY. This Court should not presume that, your Honor please, we just came from an
BUGARING: occasion last night and I am not yet come home, your Honor please. I could prove
your Honor please, that the contents of that tape is other matters your Honor
please. I was just surprised why he took video tape your Honor please, that we
ask the apology of this Court if that offend this Court your Honor please.
COURT: It is not offending because this is a public proceedings but the necessary authority
or permission should be secured.
ATTY. In fact I instructed him to go out, your Honor.
BUGARING:
COURT: After the court have noticed that he is taking a video tape.
ATTY. Yes, your Honor, in fact that is not my personal problem your Honor please, that is
BUGARING: personal to that guy your Honor please if this representation is being ….
COURT: That is very shallow, don't give that alibi.
ATTY. At any rate, your Honor please, we are going to mark our documentary evidence
BUGARING: as part of our motion for contempt, your Honor please.
COURT: What has the Register of Deeds got to say with this matter?
ATTY. Well as I have said before, I have not received any motion regarding this contempt
CONCEPCION: you are talking. I am willing now to testify.
ATTY. Your Honor I am still of the prosecution stage, it is not yet the defense. This is a
BUGARING: criminal proceedings, contempt proceedings is a criminal.
ATTY. Your Honor please, may I ask for the assistance from the Fiscal.
CONCEPCION:
COURT: If this is going to proceed, we need the presence of a Fiscal or a counsel for the
Register of Deeds.
ATTY. Can I appoint an outside lawyer not a Fiscal but a private counsel, your Honor.
CONCEPCION:
COURT: That is at your pleasure. The Court will consider that you should be amply
represented.
ATTY. As a matter of fact I have a lawyer here, Atty. Barzaga if he is willing….
CONCEPCION:
ATTY. BARZAGA4: Yes, your Honor, I will just review the records.
ATTY. Anyway your Honor please, I will not yet present my witness but I will just mark our
BUGARING: documentary exhibits which are part of the record of the case and thereafter your
Honor please….
COURT: You wait for a minute counsel because there is a preparation being done by newly
appointed counsel of the respondent, Atty. Barzaga is considered as the privately
hired counsel of the register of deeds and the respondent of this contempt
proceedings. How much time do you need to go over the record of this case so
that we can call the other case in the meanwhile.
ATTY. BARZAGA: Second call, your Honor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
COURT: Are you ready Atty. Barzaga?
ATTY. BARZAGA: Yes, your Honor. Well actually your Honor, after reviewing the record of the case
your Honor, I noticed that the motion for contempt of Court was filed on November
6, 1966 and in paragraph 6 thereof, your Honor it is stated that, 'the record of the
case shows up to the filing of this motion, the Register as well as the Deputy
Register Diosdado Concepcion of the Office of the Register of Deeds of the
Province of Cavite, did not comply with the Court Orders dated February 27, 1996,
March 29, 1996, respectively.' However, your Honor, Atty. Diosdado Concepcion
has shown to me a letter coming from Atty. Efren A. Bugaring dated September
18, 1996 addressed to the Register regarding this notice of Lis Pendens pertaining
to TCT Nos. T-519248, 519249 and 519250 and this letter request, your Honor for
the annotation of the lis pendens clearly shows that it has been already entered in
the book of primary entry. We would like also to invite the attention of the Hon.
Court that the Motion for Contempt of Court was filed on November 6, 1996. The
letter for the annotation of the lis pendens was made by the counsel for the plaintiff
only on September 18, 1996, your Honor. However, your Honor, as early as
 August 16, 1996 an Order has already been issued by the Hon. Court reading as
follows, 'Wherefore in view of the above, the motion of the defendant is GRANTED
and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, is hereby directed to
CANCEL the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of Certificate of Title Nos.
519248, 51949 (sic) and 51950 (sic).'
ATTY. Your Honor please, may we proceed your Honor, will first mark our documentary
BUGARING: evidence.
COURT: You wait until the Court allows you to do what you want to do, okay. The counsel
has just made manifestation, he has not prayed for anything. So let us wait until he
is finished and then wait for the direction of this Court what to do to have an
orderly proceedings in this case.
ATTY. Considering your Honor, that the issues appear to be a little bit complicated your
BUGARING: Honor, considering that the order regarding the annotation of the lis pendens has
already been revoked by the Hon. Court your Honor, we just request that we be
given a period of ten days from today your Honor, within which to submit our
formal written opposition your Honor.
COURT: Counsel, will you direct your attention to the manifestation filed earlier by Atty.
Tutaan in connection with the refusal of the Register of Deeds to annotate the lis
pendens because of certain reasons. According to the manifestation of Atty.
Tutaan and it is appearing in the earlier part of the record of this case, the reason
for that is because there was a pending subdivision plan, it is so stated. I think it
was dated March, 1996. May 1 have the record please.
ATTY. BARZAGA: Yes, your Honor.
COURT: This Court would like to be enlightened with respect to that matter.
ATTY. Well, according to Atty. Diosdado Concepcion he could already explain this, your
BUGARING: Honor.
COURT: Have it properly addressed as part of the manifestation so that this court can be
guided accordingly. Because this Court believes that the root of the matter started
from that. After the submission of the …. What are you suppose to submit?
ATTY. Comment your Honor, on the motion to cite Atty. Diosdado Concepcion in
BUGARING: contempt of Court.
COURT: After the submission of the Comment and furnishing a copy of the comment to the
counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is going to give the counsel for the plaintiff an
equal time within which to submit his reply.
ATTY. Your Honor please, it is the position of this representation your Honor please, that
BUGARING: we will be marking first our documentary evidence because this is set for hearing
for today, your Honor please.
COURT: If you are going to mark your evidence and they do not have their comment yet
what are we going to receive as evidence.
ATTY. If your Honor please …
BUGARING:
COURT: Will you listen to the Court and just do whatever you have to do after the
submission of the comment.
ATTY. I am listening, your Honor please, but the record will show that the motion for
BUGARING: contempt was copy furnished with the Register of Deeds and Diosdado
 Concepcion.
COURT: Precisely, if you are listening then you will get what the Court would want to do.
This should be an orderly proceedings and considering that this is a Court of
record the comment has to be in first then in your reply you can submit your
evidence to rebut the argument that is going to be put up by the respondent and
so we will be able to hear the case smoothly.
ATTY. My point here your Honor please, is that the respondent had been long time
BUGARING: furnished of this contempt proceedings. With a copy of the motion they should
have filed it in due time in accordance with the rules and because it is scheduled
for trial, we are ready to mark our evidence and present to this Court, your Honor
COURT: (Banging the gavel) Will you listen.
ATTY. I am listening, your Honor.
BUGARING:
COURT: And this Court declares that you are out of order.
ATTY. Well, if that is the contention of the Court your Honor please, we are all officers of
BUGARING: the Court, your Honor, please, we have also ---- and we know also our procedure,
your Honor.
COURT: If you know your procedure then you follow the procedure of the Court first and
then do whatever you want.
ATTY. Yes, your Honor please, because we could feel the antagonistic approach of the
BUGARING: Court of this representation ever since I appeared your Honor please and I put on
record that I will be filing an inhibition to this Hon. Court.
COURT: Do that right away. (Banging the gavel)
ATTY. Because we could not find any sort of justice in town.
BUGARING:
COURT: Do that right away.
ATTY. We are ready to present our witness and we are deprive to present our witness.
BUGARING:
COURT: You have presented a witness and it was an adverse witness that was presented.
ATTY. I did not….
BUGARING:
COURT: With respect to this, the procedure of the Court is for the respondent to file his
comment.
ATTY. Well your Honor please, at this point in time I don't want to comment on anything
BUGARING: but I reserve my right to inhibit this Honorable Court before trying this case.
COURT: You can do whatever you want.
ATTY. Yes, your Honor, that is our prerogative your Honor.
BUGARING:
COURT: As far as this Court is concerned it is going to follow the rules.
ATTY. Yes, your Honor, we know all the rules.
BUGARING:
COURT: Yes, you know your rules that's why you are putting the cart ahead of the horse.
ATTY. No your Honor, I've been challenged by this Court that I know better than this
BUGARING: Court. Modestly (sic) aside your Honor please, I've been winning in many certiorari
cases, your Honor.
COURT: Okay, okay, do that, do that. I am going to cite you for contempt of Court. (Banging
the gavel) You call the police and I am going to send this lawyer in jail. (Turning to
the Sheriff)
ATTY. I am just manifesting and arguing in favor of my client your Honor please.
BUGARING:
COURT: You have been given enough time and you have been abusing the discretion of
this Court.
ATTY. I am very sorry your Honor, if that is the appreciation of the Court but this is one
BUGARING: way I am protecting my client, your Honor.
COURT: That is not the way to protect your client that is an abuse of the discretion of this
Court. (Turning to the Sheriff) "Will you see to it that this guy is put in jail." (pp. 29-
42. Rollo)

Hence, in an Order dated December 5, 1996, Judge Español cited petitioner in direct contempt of
court, thus:

During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present together with one (1)
operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the proceedings of the case while
counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring was making manifestation to the effect that he was
ready to mark his documentary evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of court)
the Deputy Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion.

The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he did not cause the
appearance of the cameraman to take pictures, however, he admitted that they came from a
function, and that was the reason why the said cameraman was in tow with him and the
plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the cameraman
after the Court took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are open to the
public and that it being a court of record, and since its permission was not sought, such
situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court.

When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion manifested that he needed the
services of counsel and right then and there appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him,
the case was allowed to be called again. On the second call, Atty. Burgaring started to insist
that he be allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that
Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written pleading for his
client, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications and the issues are complicated.

At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his documentary
evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already perorating despite the fact that
Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished with his manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to
disregard orderly procedure, the Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the
Court for an orderly proceeding.
 While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt like doing so. Thus,
the Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty. Bugaring flared up the uttered
words insulting the Court; such as: 'that he knows better than the latter as he has won all his
cases of certiorari in the appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court; that he
was going to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being antagonistic to
his client,' and other invectives were hurled to the discredit of the Court.

Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt and order the Court's
sheriff to arrest and place him under detention.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and the fact that Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring
committed an open defiance, even challenging the Court in a disrespectful, arrogant, and
contumacious manner, he is declared in direct contempt of Court and is sentenced to three
(3) days imprisonment and payment of a fine of P3,000.00. His detention shall commence
immediately at the Municipal Jail of Imus, Cavite.5

Pursuant to said Order, the petitioner served his three (3) day sentence at the Imus Municipal Jail,
and paid the fine of P3,000.00. 6

While serving the first day of his sentence on December 5, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order citing him in direct contempt of court. The next day, December 6, 1996,
petitioner filed another motion praying for the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Both
motions were never resolved and petitioner was released on December 8, 1996. 7

To clear his name in the legal circle and the general public, petitioner filed a petition before the Court
of Appeals praying for the annulment of the Order dated December 5, 1996 citing him in direct
contempt of court and the reimbursement of the fine of P3,000.00 on grounds that respondent Judge
Dolores S. Español had no factual and legal basis in citing him in direct contempt of court, and that
said Order was null and void for being in violation of the Constitution and other pertinent laws and
jurisprudence.8

The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the transcript of stenographic notes of
the hearing held on December 5, 1996, it was obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at
times impertinent, too argumentative, to the extent of being disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic
towards the court.9 It affirmed the order of the respondent judge, but found that the fine of P3,000.00
exceeded the limit of P2,000.00 prescribed by the Rules of Court, 10 and ordered the excess of
P1,000.00 returned to petitioner. On March 6, 1998, it rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed order
dated December 5, 1996 issued by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification
that the excess fine of P1,000.00 is ORDERED RETURNED to the petitioner.

Before us, petitioner ascribes to the Court of Appeals this lone error:

THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE

ASSAILED ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH TO PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS
SMACKS OF OPPRESSION AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, HENCE IT COMMITTED A
GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN ITS QUESTIONED DECISION. 11
Petitioner insists that a careful examination of the transcript of stenographic notes of the subject
proceedings would reveal that the contempt order issued by respondent judge had no factual and
legal basis. It would also show that he was polite and respectful towards the court as he always
addressed the court with the phrase "your honor please."

We disagree.

Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95 provides:

Direct contempt punished summarily. – A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or

so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same,
including disrespect toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court or judge
and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
ten (10) days, or both, if it be a superior court, or a judge thereof, or by a fine not exceeding
two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be an inferior
court.

We agree with the statement of the Court of Appeals that petitioner's alleged deference to the trial
court in consistently addressing the respondent judge as "your Honor please" throughout the
proceedings is belied by his behavior therein:

1. the veiled threat to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court (pp. 14-15, tsn,
December 5, 1996; pp. 41-42, Rollo) is contrary to Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which mandates that "a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts".

2. the hurled uncalled for accusation that the respondent judge was partial in favor of the
other party (pp. 13-14, tsn, December 5, 1996; pp. 40-41, Rollo) is against Rule 11.04,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers from attributing to
a judge "motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case".

3. behaving without due regard to the trial court's order to maintain order in the proceedings
(pp. 9-13, tsn, December 5, 1996; pp. 36-40, Rollo) I in utter disregard to Canon 1 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics which makes it a lawyer's duty to "maintain towards the courts
(1) respectful attitude" in order to maintain its importance in the administration of justice, and
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to "observe
and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others".

4. behaving without due regard or deference to his fellow counsel who at the time he was
making representations in behalf of the other party, was rudely interrupted by the petitioner
and was not allowed to further put a word in edgewise (pp. 7-13, tsn, December 5, 1996; pp.
34-39, Rollo) is violative of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Ethics which obliges a
lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and

5. The refusal of the petitioner to allow the Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Cavite,
through counsel, to exercise his right to be heard (Ibid) is against Section 1 of Article III,
1997 Constitution on the right to due process of law, Canon 18 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics which mandates a lawyer to always treat an adverse witness "with fairness and due
 consideration," and Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility which insists on a
lawyer to "exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice."

The Court cannot therefore help but notice the sarcasm in the petitioner's use of the phrase "your
honor please." For, after using said phrase he manifested utter disrespect to the court in his
subsequent utterances. Surely this behavior from an officer of the Court cannot and should not be
countenanced, if proper decorum is to be observed and maintained during court proceedings. 12

Indeed, the conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentary evidence marked to the
extent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court showed disrespect to said counsel and the
court, was defiant of the court's system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration
of justice. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and
mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administrative of justice. 13 Direct contempt is
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge, as in the case at bar, and can be punished
summarily without hearing.14 Hence, petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the
actuation of respondent judge in issuing the contempt order inside her chamber without giving the
petitioner the opportunity to defend himself or make an immediate reconsideration. The records
show that petitioner was cited in contempt of court during he hearing in the sala of respondent judge,
and he even filed a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day. 15

Petitioner argued that while it might appear that he was carried by his emotions in espousing the
case of his client – by persisting to have his documentary evidence marked despite the respondent
judge's contrary order – he did so in the honest belief that he was bound to protect the interest of his
client to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.

The Court of Appeals aptly stated:

But "a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause" (Buenaseda v.
Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to
exert every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 15, Ozamis City, 249 SCRA 432, 439). He should not,
therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03. Canon
10 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes, in accordance with Rule 12.04, Canon
12 of the same Canons (Ibid).

"Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice contravenes such lawyer's duty."16

Although respondent judge was justified in citing petitioner in direct contempt of court, she erred in
imposing a fine in the amount of P3,000.00 which exceeded the ceiling of P2,000.00 under Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 22-95 which took effect on November 16, 1995. It was not
established that the fine was imposed in bad faith. The Court of Appeals thus properly ordered the
return of the excess of P1,000.00. Aside from the fine, the three days imprisonment meted out to
petitioner was justified and within the 10-day limit prescribed in Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court, as amended.

It is our view and we hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in
its assailed decision.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated March 6, 1998 of the Court of Appeals is
hereby AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite is ordered to return
to the petitioner, Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, the sum of P1,000.00 out of the original fine of
P3,000.00. 1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Atty. RAMON P. REYES, Complainant, v. 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. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Case

Before us is a Sworn Complaint 1 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 lawyer’s 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him in 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, 3 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.

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 4 for estafa against him before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. 5 On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a
Warrant of Arrest 6 against Pan.

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 collection of a sum of
money and damages as well as for the .dissolution of a business venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.

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 8 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 Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit
Counter-Affidavits and Evidence, 9 of the appeal 10 to the justice secretary, and of the
Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings. 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 complainant’s 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. 12 Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29,
2002 Resolution. 13

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In her Report and Recommendation, 14 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 respondent’s client. In his
Comment, respondent himself claimed that "the reason . . . was . . . the irregularities of
the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent damages." cralaw virtua1aw library
Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed
purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondent’s 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 complainants 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 commissioner’s recommendation for his suspension from the practice
of law for two (2) years.

This Court’s Ruling

We agree with the IBP’s 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. 15 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." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Respondent’s 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 16 alleged the following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 . . . 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; . . .;

"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 complainant’s allegation that the civil action was
intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. If respondent or his client did not
agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s 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 Salanga’s 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, 19 but also constitute
highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the Lawyer’s 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." cralaw virtua1aw library

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. 20 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. 21

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers in 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, effectively immediately.

SO ORDERED. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Rule 8. 01

SECOND DIVISION

ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, A.C. No. 6396

Complainant,

Present:

PUNO, J.,

Chairman,

-        versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CALLEJO,

TINGA, and

CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.

'

ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO,

Respondent,  Promulgated:

October 25, 2005

x-------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of

Court. Members of the bar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a
manner befitting their noble profession.

Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional

Trial Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed with the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
a Complaint-Affidavit [1] with supporting documents [2] against respondent Atty.
Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule
7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [3] The
charge in the complaint is summed up as follows:

Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva

Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant's office to inquire
whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784, entitled  Sps. Crispino
Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin,  had already been
remanded to the court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva
Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either
party in Civil Case No. 784.

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted
since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be
presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin.
To this respondent retorted scornfully, 'Who will certify the Court of Appeals'
Decision, the Court of Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila
to get a certified true copy? Surprised at this outburst, complainant replied, 'Sir, it's
in the Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be
representing. Respondent then replied, 'Then you should have notified me of the
said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office
since then, but you never bothered to notify me. Complainant replied, 'It is not our
duty, Sir, to notify you of the said requirement.

Respondent then answered, 'You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the
record of the case? Complainant responded, 'No, Sir, I mean, it's not our duty to
notify you that you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano, 'Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam
yon? Kasdiay? (You mean to say you dont care anymore? Is that the way it is?') He
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 taking place. [4]

After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed
his finger at complainant and shouted, 'Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek
haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah! (Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill
feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on me!') Complainant was shocked at
respondent's words but still managed to reply, 'I dont even know your client, Sir.
Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainant's window, he again
shouted, 'Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!') [5]

Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her

office of which she was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that
her credibility had been tarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to
command full respect from her staff. [6]

 
 

The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days after the incident, was supported by

an Affidavit [7] signed by employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who
witnessed the incident. The Affidavit narrated the same incident as witnessed by
the said employees. A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary Evidence was
filed by complainant on 25 September 2003. [8]

On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued an Order [9] requiring respondent to submit

his answer to the complaint. Respondent submitted his Compliance [10] dated 18
June 2003. Respondent explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case
No. 847, entitled Sps. Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et
al., filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He learned of the finality of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No.
847 before the lower court. Prior to the incident, he went to the office of the
complainant to request for the transmittal of the records of the case to the MCTC
and the complainant reassured him of the same.

Respondent admits having inquired about the status of the transmittal of the
records on 5 May 2003. However, he has no explanation as to what transpired on
that day. Instead, he narrates that on 25 May 2003, twelve days after the incident,
the records had not yet been transmitted, and he subsequently learned that these
records were returned to the court of origin.

The hearing for the administrative complaint before the CBD was set on 25
September 2003 by the Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan.
However, on said date, only complainant appeared. The latter also moved that the
case be submitted for resolution. [11] Respondent later on filed
a Manifestation stating that the reason for his non-appearance was because he was
still recuperating from physical injuries and that he was not mentally fit to prepare
the required pleadings as his vehicle was rained with bullets on 19 August 2003. He
also expressed his public apology to the complainant in the
same Manifestation. [12]

Complainant filed a Manifestation  expressing her desire not to appear on the next
hearing date in view of respondent's public apology, adding that respondent
personally and humbly asked for forgiveness which she accepted. [13]
 

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded

and warned that any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be
dealt with more severely. [14] The IBP submitted to this Court a Notice of
Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. [15]

At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of
Civil Case No. 784. Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him
to present the required certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the decision
since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a
duplicate original or certified true copy of its decision.

His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were
already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record
and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent them,
respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.

Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Rule 8.02A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case
No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel
of record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.

 
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784,
respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the
clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-
mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in
front of her subordinates.

As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, [16] 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. [17] These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon
8 and Rule 8.01, to wit:

Rule 7.03 ' A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect
on his fitness to practice law, now shall he, whether in public or
private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
 
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.
 

Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers

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 towards each other and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times. [18]

As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not

categorically deny the charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy
narration of the prefatory facts of the case as well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.

Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit that respondent's

uncharacteristic behavior was not an isolated incident. He has supposedly done the
same to Attys. Abraham Johnny G. Asuncion and Temmy Lambino, the latter having
filed a case against respondent pending before this Court. [19] We, however,
cannot acknowledge such allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity of
such claim. No affidavits to that effect were submitted by either Atty. Asuncion or
Atty. Lambino.

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that
respondent had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This
is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations.
People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if
they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and
words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of
his actions.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their
brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by
artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting
interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the
honorable performance of professional duty. [20]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of

TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar infraction with
be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Bar
Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

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

ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO

PEFIANCO, respondent.

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 Responsibility1 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.2cräläwvirtualibräry

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.

A.C. No. 5768               March 26, 2010

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., Respondent.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon another
lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him.

The Facts and the Case

On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit 1 with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment,
suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against
respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for the following offenses:

1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case 7040, filed a reply
with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive, and improper
language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
 2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged
falsification of public document when the document allegedly falsified was a notarized
document executed on February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a
lawyer nor was assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a signatory to the
document.

3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the
start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, "Laban kung
laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na
abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na
kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito."

4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document without bothering to
check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court and, with gross ignorance of the law,
failed to consider that a notarized document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until
proven otherwise.

5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his
unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary
of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness;
and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. In
October 2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son
who worked with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, Department of Justice.
When Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory
language.

Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses in his answer with motion to dismiss:

1. Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for examination, Atty. Barandon
filed charges of libel and grave threats against him. These charges came about because
Atty. Ferrer’s clients filed a case for falsification of public document against Atty. Barandon.

2. The offended party in the falsification case, Imelda Palatolon, vouchsafed that her
thumbmark in the waiver document had been falsified.

3. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks against Atty. Barandon,
the MTC Daet was already in session. It was improbable that the court did not take steps to
stop, admonish, or cite Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.

4. Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that Atty. Ferrer was
drunk on December 19, 2000 and that he degraded the law profession. The latter had
received various citations that speak well of his character.

5. The cases of libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against Atty. Ferrer were still
pending. Their mere filing did not make the latter guilty of the charges. Atty. Barandon was
forum shopping when he filed this disbarment case since it referred to the same libel and
grave threats subject of the criminal cases.

In his reply affidavit,2 Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for disbarment. He alleged that on
December 29, 2000 at about 1:30 p.m., while Atty. Ferrer was on board his son’s taxi, it figured in a
collision with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycle’s passengers. 3 But neither Atty.
Ferrer nor any of his co-passengers helped the victims and, during the police investigation, he
denied knowing the taxi driver and blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also
prevented an eyewitness from reporting the accident to the authorities. 4

Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had already been dismissed. He
belittled the citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly received. On the contrary, in its Resolution 00-1, 5 the IBP-
Camarines Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as judge of the MTC of Mercedes,
Camarines Sur, on the ground that he did not have "the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry
and character of a trial judge" and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of lasciviousness and
a disbarment case filed by an employee of the same IBP chapter.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to
this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating
Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of Canons 8.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil
Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the
document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating
Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the
presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing.

On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XV-2002-225, 6 adopting and
approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension
to only one year.

Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in its Resolution 7 of October 19,
2002 on the ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5,
2003, however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of Atty. Ferrer’s motion for
reconsideration.8 On May 22, 2008 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner that denied Atty. Ferrer’s motion for
reconsideration.10

On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of Governors’ IBP Notice of
Resolution No. XVIII-2008.11 On August 12, 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty. Ferrer’s comment
as a petition for review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Barandon filed his
comment,12 reiterating his arguments before the IBP. Further, he presented certified copies of orders
issued by courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer against appearing in court drunk. 13

The Issues Presented

The issues presented in this case are:

1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred
in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and

2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.

The Court’s Ruling

We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. 14

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:

Rule 8.01. – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty.
Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this
imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty.
Barandon authored the same.

Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without
using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. To quote portions of what he said in
his reply with motion to dismiss:

1. That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable misrepresentation and "FALSIFICATION" of
documents, committed to mislead this Honorable Court, but with concomitant grave responsibility of
counsel for Defendants, for distortion and serious misrepresentation to the court, for presenting a
grossly "FALSIFIED" document, in violation of his oath of office as a government employee and as
member of the Bar, for the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has never executed the
"SALAYSAY AFFIDAVIT", wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in view whereof, hereby DENY
the same including the affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the truth of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all lies and mere fabrications,
sufficient ground for "DISBARMENT" of the one responsible for said falsification and distortions." 15

The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the
adversarial nature of our legal system.16

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins
lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code
provides:

Rule 7.03. – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly
before the start of a court hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present convincing evidence to support his
denial of this particular charge. He merely presented a certification from the police that its blotter for
the day did not report the threat he supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police
blotter on a subsequent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Ferrer.

Atty. Ferrer said, "Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na
palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines
Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito." Evidently, he uttered these with intent
to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court
personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a
member of the legal profession. The Court cannot countenance it.

Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. 17 Atty. Ferrer 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 Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he
chose to express his indignation. 1avvphi1

Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. The
essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one’s defense. 18 So long as the parties are given the
opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied
with.19 Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file
countless pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.

All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly.20 Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court,
was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
in CBD Case 01-809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of
law for one year effective upon his receipt of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Ferrer’s personal record as an attorney with the Office
of the Bar Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the IBP and to the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016

NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This administrative case relates to the performance of duty of an attorney towards his
client in which the former is found and declared to be lacking in knowledge and skill
sufficient for the engagement. Does quantum meruit attach when an attorney fails to
accomplish tasks which he is naturally expected to perform during his professional
engagement?

Antecedents
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos
(respondent) with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the amount of
P70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services despite his not having performed
the contemplated professional services. She avers that in March 2005, she sought the
legal services of the respondent to represent her in the annulment of her marriage with
her estranged husband, Jovencio C. Sanchez; that the respondent accepted the
engagement, fixing his fee at P150,000.00, plus the appearance fee of
P5,000.00/hearing; that she then gave to him the initial amount of P90,000.00; 1 that
she had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire on the developments in her case,
but he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full payment of
the acceptance fee; that she had only learned then that what he had contemplated to
file for her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of her
marriage; that he further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee
for the annulment of her marriage;2 that she subsequently withdrew the case from him,
and requested the refund of the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same
as he had already started working on the case;3 that she had sent him a letter, through
Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return of her payment less whatever amount
corresponded to the legal services he had already performed; 4 that the respondent did
not heed her demand letter despite his not having rendered any appreciable legal
services to her;5 and that his constant refusal to return the amounts prompted her to
bring an administrative complaint against him 6 in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) on March 20, 2007.

In his answer dated May 21, 2007,7 the respondent alleges that the complainant and
her British fiancee sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment of
her marriage; that based on his evaluation of her situation, the more appropriate case
would be one for legal separation anchored on the psychological incapacity of her
husband; that she and her British fiancee agreed on P150,000.00 for his legal services
to bring the action for legal separation, with the fiancee paying him P70,000.00, as
evidenced by his handwritten receipt; 8 that for purposes of the petition for legal
separation he required the complainant to submit copies of her marriage contract and
the birth certificates of her children with her husband, as well as for her to submit to
further interviews by him to establish the grounds for legal separation; that he later on
communicated with her and her fiancee upon finalizing the petition, but they did not
promptly respond to his communications; that in May 2005, she admitted to him that
she had spent the money that her fiancee had given to pay the balance of his
professional fees; and that in June 2005, she returned to him with a note at the back of
the prepared petition for legal separation essentially requesting him not to file the
petition because she had meanwhile opted to bring the action for the annulment of her
marriage instead.

The respondent admits that he received the demand letter from Atty. Martinez, but
states that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of paper because the demand
lacked basis in law. It is noted that he wrote in the last part of his answer dated May
21, 2007 in relation to the demand letter the following:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund dated 15
August 2005 (Annex "B" of the complaint) as a mere scrap of paper or should have
been addressed by her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ,
who unskillfully relied on an unverified information furnished him, to the urinal
project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose. 9 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) summoned the parties to a mandatory
conference on August 3, 2007,10 but only the complainant and her counsel attended the
conference. On his part, the respondent sent a letter dated July 20, 2007 to the IBP-
CBD to reiterate his answer.11 Due to his non-appearance, the IBP-CBD terminated the
conference on the same day, but required the complainant to submit a verified position
paper within 10 days. She did not submit the position paper in the end.

In his commissioner's report dated July 25, 2008, 12 IBP Investigating Commissioner
Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. declared that the respondent's insistence that he could have
brought a petition for legal separation based on the psychological incapacity of the
complainant's husband was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not
conversant with the grounds for legal separation; that because he rendered some legal
services to the complainant, he was entitled to receive only P40,000.00 out of the
P70,000.00 paid to him as acceptance fee, the P40,000.00 being the value of the
services rendered under the principle of quantum meruit; and that, accordingly, he
should be made to return to her the amount of P30,000.00.

IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. observed that the respondent's

statement in the last part of his answer, to the effect that the demand letter sent by
Atty. Martinez in behalf of the complainant should be treated as a scrap of paper, or
should have been addressed "to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its
rightful purpose," was uncalled for and improper; and he opined that such offensive and
improper language uttered by the respondent against a fellow lawyer violated Rule
8.0113 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. ultimately recommended as follows:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The undersigned Commissioner is most respectfully recommending the following:

(1) To order the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P30,000.00 which he
received for the purpose of preparing a petition for legal separation. Undersigned
believes that considering the degree of professional services he has extended, the
amount of P40,000.00 he received on March 10, 2005 would be sufficient payment for
the same.
(2) For failure to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and annulment of
marriage, respondent should be sanctioned.
(3) Lastly, for failure to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness towards his colleagues and
for using offensive or improper language in his pleading, which was filed right before
the Commission on Bar Discipline, he must also be sanctioned and disciplined in order
to avoid repetition of the said misconduct.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully recommended that Atty.

Romeo G. Aguilos be ordered to return to complainant Nenita D. Sanchez the amount of
P30,000.00 which the former received as payment for his services because it is
excessive.

It is also recommended that the Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months for failure to show his respect to his fellow lawyer
and for using offensive and improper language in his pleadings.
Through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20, 2008, 14 the IBP Board of
Governors affirmed the findings of Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr., but
modified the recommendation of the penalty, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex
"A", and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent's failure to show respect to
his fellow lawyer and for showing offensive and improper words in his pleadings, Atty.
Romeo G. Aguilos, is hereby WARNED and Ordered to Return the Thirty Thousand
(P30,000.00) Pesos to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice. 15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,16 which the IBP Board of Governors
denied through Resolution No. XXI-2014-177 dated March 23, 2014. 17

Issues

The two issues for consideration and resolution are: (a) whether or not the respondent
should be held administratively liable for misconduct; and (b) whether or not he should
be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid.

Ruling of the Court

We adopt and affirm Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 and Resolution No. XXI-2014-177,
but modify the recommended penalty.

1.

Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return the
entire amount received from the client

The respondent offered himself to the complainant as a lawyer who had the requisite
professional competence and skill to handle the action for the annulment of marriage
for her. He required her to pay P150,000.00 as attorney's fees, exclusive of the filing
fees and his appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing. Of that amount, he received the sum
of P70,000.00.

On the respondent's conduct of himself in his professional relationship with the

complainant as his client, we reiterate and adopt the thorough analysis and findings by
IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. to be very apt and cogent, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As appearing in Annex "4", which is the handwritten retainer's contract between the
respondent and the complainant, there is a sweeping evidence that there is an
attorney-client relationship. The respondent agreed to accept the case in the amount of
P150,000.00. The acceptance fee was agreed upon to be paid on installment basis.
Excluded in the agreement is the payment of appearance fee, filing fee and other legal
documentation.
That next question is - for what case the P150,000.00 was intended for? Was it
intended for the filing of the annulment case or legal separation?

In the verified Answer filed by the respondent, even the latter is quite confused as to
what action he is going to file in court. The intention of the British national and the
complainant was to get married. At that time and maybe up to now, the complainant is
still legally married to a certain Jovencio C. Sanchez. That considering that the two are
intending to get married, we can safely assume that the complainant was
contemplating of filing a petition for annulment of marriage in order to free her from
the marriage bond with her husband. It is only then, granting that the petition will be
granted, that the complainant will be free to marry the British subject. The legal
separation is but a separation of husband and wife from board and bed and the
marriage bond still exists. Granting that the petition for legal separation will be granted,
one is not free to marry another person.

A reading of the answer filed by the respondent would show that he himself is not well
versed in the grounds for legal separation. He stated the following;
. . . respondent suggested to them to file instead a legal separation case for the
alleged psychological incapacity of her husband to comply with his marital obligations
developed or of their marriage on February 6, 1999. (please see par. 2 of the Answer).
If the intention was to file a petition for legal separation, under A.M. 02-11-11-SC, the
grounds are as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Sec. 2. Petition-

(a) Who may and when to file - (1) A petition for legal separation may be filed only by
the husband or the wife, as the case may be, within five years from the time of the
occurrence of any of the following causes:

(a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;

(b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or
political affiliation;

(c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a

child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or
inducement;

(d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years,
even if pardoned;

(e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;

(f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;

(g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in or

outside the Philippines;

(h) Sexual infidelity or perversion of the respondent;

(i) Attempt on the life of petitioner by the respondent; or

(j) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than
one year.
Psychological incapacity, contrary to what respondent explained to the complainant, is
not one of those mentioned in any of the grounds for legal separation.

Even in Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, psychological incapacity is

never a ground for the purpose of filing a petition for legal separation.

On the other hand, psychological incapacity has always been used for the purpose of
filing a petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage.

That as provided for by Article 36 of the New Family Code, it stales that "a marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise
be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization."

That lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments and participate in continuing
legal education program (Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) in order to
prevent repetition of such kind of advise that respondent gave to the complainant. In
giving an advise, he should be able to distinguish between the grounds for legal
separation and grounds for annulment of marriage. But as the respondent stated in his
answer, it appears that he is mixed up with the basic provisions of the law. 18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between
the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would
have been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement
for either causes of action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue
the action for legal separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably
contemplated by the parties and for which his services was engaged, was no other than
an action for annulment of the complainant's marriage with her husband with the
intention of marrying her British fiancee. They did not contemplate legal separation at
all, for legal separation would still render her incapacitated to re-marry. That the
respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition for legal
separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's fees if she desired to have the
action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a
hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.

As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an

attorney. He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal serviee which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer
who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. (Emphasis supplied)
The next to be dealt with is the matter of the attorney's fees. We can easily agree that
every attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for
services performed at the special instance and request of his client. As long as the
attorney is in good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the
client, he should have a reasonable compensation for such services. 19

The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the
client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it
is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order. 20 The
underlying theory is that the retainer's agreement between them gives to the client the
reasonable notice of the arrangement on the fees. Once the attorney has performed the
task assigned to him in a valid agreement, his compensation is determined on the basis
of what he and the client agreed.21 In the absence of the written agreement, the
lawyer's compensation shall be based on quantum meruit, which means "as much as he
deserved."22 The determination of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is also
authorized "when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion."23 Moreover, quantum meruit becomes the basis of recovery of
compensation by the attorney where the circumstances of the engagement indicate that
it will be contrary to the parties' expectation to deprive the attorney of all
compensation.

Nevertheless, the court shall determine in every case what is reasonable compensation
based on the obtaining circumstances,24 provided that the attorney does not receive
more than what is reasonable, in keeping with Section 24 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees - An attorney shall be

entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation
for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No
court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper
compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be
paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The courts supervision of the lawyer's compensation for legal services rendered is not
only for the purpose of ensuring the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees
charged, but also for the purpose of preserving the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession.25 cralawred

The respondent should not have accepted the engagement because as it was later
revealed, it was way above his ability and competence to handle the case for
annulment of marriage. As a consequence, he had no basis to accept any amount as
attorney's fees from the complainant. He did not even begin to perform the
contemplated task he undertook for the complainant because it was improbable that
the agreement with her was to bring the action for legal separation. His having
supposedly prepared the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for
annulment of marriage was either his way of covering up for his incompetence, or his
means of charging her more. Either way did not entitle him to retain the amount he had
already received.

The written receipt dated March 10, 2005 shows that the respondent received
P70,000.00 as acceptance fee. His refusal to return the amount to the complainant
rested on his claim of having already completed the first phase of the preparation of the
petition for legal separation after having held conferences with the complainant and her
British fiancee. In this respect, IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. opined
that the respondent could retain P40,000.00 of the P70,000.00 because the respondent
had rendered some legal services to the complainant, specifically: (a) having the
complainant undergo further interviews towards establishing the ground for legal
separation; (b) reducing into writing the grounds discussed during the interviews based
on her statement in her own dialect (Annexes 1 and 2) after he could not understand
the written statement prepared for the purpose by her British fiancee; (c) requiring her
to submit her marriage contract with her husband Jovencio C. Sanchez (Annex 3), and
the certificates of live birth of her four children: Mary Joy, Timothy, Christine, and
Janette Anne, all surnamed Sanchez (Annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7); and (d) finalizing her
petition for legal separation (Annex 8) in the later part of April, 2007.

The opinion of IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. in favor of the respondent
was too generous. We cannot see how the respondent deserved any compensation
because he did not really begin to perform the contemplated tasks if, even based on his
version, he would prepare the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for
annulment of marriage. The attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks he should
naturally and expectedly perform during his professional engagement does not
discharge his professional responsibility and ethical duty toward his client. The
respondent was thus guilty of misconduct, and may be sanctioned according to the
degree of the misconduct. As a consequence, he may be ordered to restitute to the
client the amount received from the latter in consideration of the professional
engagement, subject to the rule on quantum meruit, if warranted.

Accordingly, the respondent shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his
misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to
return the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest of
6% per annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.

2.

Respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards his professional colleague

The Rules of Court mandates members of the Philippine 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."26 This duty of lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, whose Canon 8 provides: "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 of Canon 8 specifically demands that: "A lawyer
shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper."

The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system which has necessitated
lawyers to use strong language in the advancement of the interest of their
clients.27 However, as members of a noble profession, lawyers are always impressed
with the duty to represent their clients' cause, or, as in this case, to represent a
personal matter in court, with courage and zeal but that should not be used as license
for the use of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession, a lawyer's language - spoken or in his pleadings - must be
dignified.28 As such, every lawyer is mandated to carry out his duty as an agent in the
administration of justice with courtesy, dignity and respect not only towards his clients,
the court and judicial officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the Legal
Profession.

The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez should
be treated "as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel x x
x to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may service its rightful purpose"
constituted simple misconduct that this Court cannot tolerate.

In his motion for reconsideration, the respondent tried to justify the offensive and
improper language by asserting that the phraseology was not per se uncalled for and
improper. He explained that he had sufficient cause for maintaining that the demand
letter should be treated as a mere scrap of paper and should be disregarded. However,
his assertion does not excuse the offensiveness and impropriety of his language. He
could have easily been respectful and proper in responding to the letter.

As penalty for this particular misconduct, he is reprimanded, with the stern warning
that a repetition of the offense will be severely punished. chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated

September 20, 2008 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, with
the MODIFICATION that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby FINED P10,000.00 for
misrepresenting his professional competence to the client, and REPRIMANDS him for
his use of offensive and improper language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern
warning that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished.

The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant within thirty

(30) days from notice the sum of P70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per
annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.

Let copies of this decision be attached to the personal records of Atty. Romeo G.
Aguilos as a member of the Philippine Bar, and be furnished to the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016

MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO "ARGEE"
C. GUEVARRA, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint 1 for disbarment filed by
complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty.
Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of Rules 1.01 and 1.02,
Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 8.01 of Canon 8; and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Facts

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group,
Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and
engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery. 3 On the other hand, respondent is
the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed criminal cases
against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in
2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009. 4

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online
social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant. His posts include the
following excerpts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic  Justice here!

Kiss My Client's Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don't kiss Belo's ass. Guys and
girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a
national campaign against Plastic Politicians No guns, No goons, No gold - IN GUTS I
TRUST!

Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio's Big Bang on Friday
- You will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK
QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o
my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles :) (September 22 at 11:18pm) 5

Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her
office receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga.
Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso... si Imelda
Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa
kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm)6

Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may 'extra-legal' budget yon.

Kaya lang, histado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap  eh, pag nalaman mo,
baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha  (August 9 at 10:31pm)7

Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA  BATCHMATES SA  DOJ: TIMBREHAN NIYO AKO

KUNG MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NI BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just
[want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya  runs
into tens of millions.... (September 15 at 3:57pm)8

Argee Guevarra thinks aloud how the payola machinery of vicki belo killed the
news of a picket demonstration in front of the Belo clinic. I wonder how
television, print[,] and radio programs can kill the story when the next rallies will have
the following numbers 100, 200, 500 and 1000. Kung magkaasaran pa,  10,000
demonstrators will be assembled in front of the Belo Medical Clinic at Tomas Morato on
July 27, 2009. Hahahahaha! (July 17 at 7:56pm)9

Argee Guevarra Nakakatawa nga, 10milyon pa  budget... [I] didn't know that my
reputation is worth that much. Aba ako kaya magdemanda sa kanila  :) Ikot-ikot daw
ang mga  P.R. ni Belo trying to convince editors to pin me down with
something eh alam ko na wala naman akong  sex video!!! Adik talaga
sa botox si Aling Becky at may tama na sa utak - eh kung gagastos ka lang
ng 10 milyon para sa  tirang-pikon laban sa akin at  to protect your burak na
reputasyon as a plastic surgeon, i-donate mo na lang yon sa biktima ni Ondoy,
Pepeng at Ramil! Yung mga homeboys ko sa  Pasig na nilimas [ni]  Ondoy ang kukubra
sa yo!  (October 23 at 5:31pm)10

Argee Guevarra is inspired by Jose Norio's courageous act of showing her face on
national television to expose the Reyna ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng
Kapalpakan. Inspired by shock nevertheless by the fact that the much needed partial
restoration of her behind would cost a staggering $500,000-$1,000,000 Stanford
Medical Hospital and she will still remain permanently disabled for the rest of her life...
(July 11 at 2:08am)11

Argee Guevarra Just got my internet connection. WILL EMAIL U THE LURID

UNASSAILABLE FACTS ABOUT VICKI BELO'S QUACK DOCTORING. (October 27,
2009)12

Argee Guevarra yeah... actually the issue is simple and you will easily see which side
you'll be taking- just pay Ms. Josie Norcio a visit at St. Luke's at talagang binaboy
siya ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan (July 10 at 12:08am)13
chanrobleslaw

The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account
that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire
medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause, 14 to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Argee Guevarra yup... [I'll] even throw the kitchen sink at her. Enjoy nga ito, we will
paralyze the operations of all her clinic and seek out her patients and
customers to boycott her. [So] far, good response – 70% decrease in her July
sales... (August 9 at 10:29pm)15

Argee Guevarra Guys, pandemonium has broken loose in [BMGI's] 6 clinics after Ms.
Josie Norio's tell-all. With only 2 surgeons of BMGI certified by PAPRAS, there is real-
and-present danger that surgeries like liposuction, nose lift, boob jobs which have been
performed by [BMGI's] physicians, every patient runs the risk of something going
wrong with the procedures they have undergone under [BMGI's] hands:(" (July 12 at
12:21am)16

Argee Guevarra [T]hey perform plastic surgery procedures without licensed and trained
doctors, they nearly killed a client of mine, medical malpractice, use of banned
substances/fillers on patients. just recently, in flawless clinic, a patient who had a
simple facial landed in the hospital ... (August 9 at 10:04pm) 17

Argee Guevarra braces for typhoon Ramil without forgetting to ask comrades and
friends in Cebu to greet Vicki Belo with a boycott once she visits there on Oct. 20.
Cebu's royal set already knows that she is not a certified plastic surgeon: Boycott
Belo, Flawless Reckless, Belat Essentials!!!! (October 18 at 6:23pm)18

Argee Guevarra [W]ell, with all the kababuyan of the Belo clinic, its money-
making machines, dapat convert them into public health clinics!!! instead of
pandering to the vanities of those who want to look like Dra. Belo. (July 11 at
2:16am)19

Argee Guevarra darling kellyn, so far, i have 3 other ex-belo patients who will tell all
too!!!!! Grabe pala ang mga kapalpakan niyan. So did u leave Belo Clinic
because it has become a Frankenstein Factory? (July 11 at 2:30am)20

Argee Guevarra BOYCOTT BELO! FLAWLESS RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I'll

be gone for a week to a place where there will be no facebook so please, add Trixie
Cruz-Angeles if you want to find out more about our anti-quack doctor campaign!
(September 24 at 3:00pm)21

Argee Guevarra Anyone care to sponsor T-shirts bearing this slogan? - BOYCOTT
BELO! FLAWLESS RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS! (September 23 at 12:17arn)22

Argee Guevarra Pare, eksena on Thursday I will go to the hearing with a placard

- BOYCOTT BELO!!! FLAWLESS RECKLESS!!! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I will vote for
Adel Tamano (La Salle-Ateneo lower batch sa akin at mabuti ang pamilya niyan)... BUT
WOULD YOU??? (September 23 at 1:50am)23

Argee Guevarra advocates a national patients' boycott of the Belo Medical Group. To all
my friends and comrades, please stay away from Belo's clinics. I have 2 cousins
and 3 friends already who have canceled their lipo from belo. Please help me shut
down the Belo Medical Group until they perform their moral and legal
obligation to Ms. Josie Norcio... (July 17 at 2:12pm)24
chanrobleslaw

Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly
threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without
proof,25 as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Argee Guevarra Mr. Jay, by next year- GMA will no longer be president and she will be
jailed for plunder; Vicky Belo will no longer be a doctor and she will be in the
middle of a criminal prosecution. The General Surgeon of France will have a
Philippine version. By October and November, some congressmen I have spoken with
will be issuing summons to Vicky Belo for a congressional inquiry; the subject -
legislation regulating the practice of cosmetic surgery! (September 22 at 11:31pm) 26

Argee Guevarra Celso de1os Angeles can still get medical attention in prison -
from Vicky Belo after she gets convicted too for criminal negligence
and estafa  (July 15 at 10:05am)27

Argee Guevarra is preparing himself for a campaign against the Belo Medical Group
for its criminal negligence which nearly killed Ms. Josie Norcio over a botched
butt augmentation procedure. He found out that the Dr. Belo herself marketed the
product to Ms. Norcio, the operation was carried out by her doctors who were not
licensed by the Philippine Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic
Surgeons.............. (July 9 at 8:54pm)28
chanrobleslaw

Complainant likewise averred that some of respondent's Facebook posts were sexist,
vulgar, and disrespectful of women,29 to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Argee Guevarra but can u help me too with maricar reyes? who's the hottest cebuana
chic chick there nowadays? haven't been there for quite some time... pa-chicks ka
naman!!!  I'm sure marami kang  25-and-below naprends diyan (August 10 at
8:36pm)30

Argee Guevarra hay  joseph!!! how's the gayest lawyer in cebu? our forces will soon
picket the belo clinic there, can u tell me where that is? halato ko na sayo si hayden,
promise!" (August 10 at 12:23am)31

Argee Guevarra joseph, i can't say i love u too - baka  belo's team will use all sorts of
attacks na against me. to thwart them, being the gayest gay in the philippines, can u
issue a certification that i am so not like your type? at yung preferred ko lang
ay  thin, thalino  and thisay?  (September 23 at 12:01am)32
chanrobleslaw

Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to
extort money from her, as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a
comment on his Facebook post:33 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Kellyn Conde Sy utang mo! Pay up time:) (July 11 at 2:37am)

Argee Guevarra kellyn, sisingilin ko muna si  belo... at saka sabi mo naman,

maibagsak ko lang ang kaplastikan ni  belo, quits na tayo ...(July 11 at 2:38am)34
chanrobleslaw

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as
well as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand
letter35 dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for
disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2551.

In defense,36 respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his

constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy,37 asserting that the posts quoted by
complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant to be
shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part. 38 He also
averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and
contended that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client,
Norcio, had filed against complainant.39 He denied that the remarks were vulgar and
obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public hatred against
complainant.40 He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her,
explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the
criminal case for estafa,  as well as the civil case for damages against her. 41 Finally,
respondent pointed out that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the
subject of fair comment.42

After the mandatory conference had been terminated, 43 the parties were directed to file
their respective position papers.44 Thereafter, the IBP, through the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), set the case for clarificatory hearing. 45 Upon termination thereof, the
case was deemed submitted for report/recommendation. 46

IBP's Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation47 dated August 13, 2013, the IBP-CBD

recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the
practice of law, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall
be dealt with more severely.48 It held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03, 49 Rule
8.01,50 and Rule 19.0151 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for having posted the
above-quoted remarks on his Facebook account, pointing out that respondent cannot
invoke the "private" nature of his posts, considering that he had at least 2,000 "friends"
who can read and react thereto. Moreover, the IBP-CBD maintained that the criminal
cases he had filed against complainant on behalf of Norcio had been dismissed for
insufficient evidence; therefore, he can no longer campaign against complainant whose
alleged crimes against Norcio had not been established. 52

In a Resolution53 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to

adopt and approve the August 13, 2013 Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Respondent moved for reconsideration,54 arguing that there was no specific act

attributed to him that would warrant his suspension from the practice of law. He also
averred that the libel cases filed against him by an employee of BMGI had already been
dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 55

In a Resolution56 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors partially granted
respondent's motion, reducing the penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months
suspension. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Court's Ruling

The Court has examined the records of this case and concurs with the IBP's findings,
except as to the penalty imposed on respondent.

At the outset, the Court notes that respondent never denied that he posted the
purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook
account. In defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were
"private remarks" on his "private account" 57 that can only be viewed by his circle of
friends. Thus, when complainant accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally
guaranteed right to privacy.

The defense is untenable.

Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1)
billion registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users. 58  Social
media  are web-based platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to
generate and share content. There are various classifications 59 of social media platforms
and one can be classified under the "social networking sites" such as Facebook. 60

Facebook is a "voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit

information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such
as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another." 61 Users register at this site,
create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends,
and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their
profile. A user can post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be
made visible to anyone, depending on the user's privacy settings. 62

To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was
armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's
profile, as well as information uploaded by the user. In H v. W,63 the South Gauteng
High Court of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users
to "customize their privacy settings," but with the cautionary advice that although
Facebook, as stated in its policies, "makes every effort to protect a user's information,
these privacy settings are however not foolproof."64

Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user
manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can
materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other
words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the
user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. 65

The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting
complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the
latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of
Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a
select few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that
the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his
circle of friends, respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant
consideration.66

Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were
limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same - or
other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile - will be
safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools
to interact and share in any conceivable way";
(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
 (4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not
Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own
Facebook friends.67
chanrobleslaw

Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee
absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's
circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or
her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is
Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a
person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or
who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at
"Friends."68 Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right
to privacy is negated.

Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject remarks were written in the
exercise of his freedom of speech and expression.

Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute.69 While the freedom of expression and the right
of speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the
Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. 70 As such, the
constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or
half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into
disrepute.71

A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant
and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan,"  and insinuating that she has been bribing people
to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the
name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed
criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured
("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a
boycott of BMGI's services all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that
Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with
conviction for criminal negligence and estafa  which is contrary to one's obligation "to
act with justice."·

In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act
of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject
Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 - 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.
chanrobleslaw

By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,

respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he
must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm,
and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming
of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults
and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.

That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage
who is exposed to criticism72 does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is
the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide,  and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety.73 In this case, respondent's remarks against
complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be
administratively sanctioned.

"Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity,
as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good
character being an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and
for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the
Rules of Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's
behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties,
but also covers any misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their
profession—would show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges
which their license and the law invest in them." 74 Accordingly, the Court finds that
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
as originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stem warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation

of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the
courts.

SO ORDERED. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016

SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA, Complainants, v. ATTY. ERNESTO V.

VILLAGARCIA, Respondent.
 DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint 1 for disbarment filed by
complainants Spouses Manolo and Milinia Nuezca (complainants) against respondent
Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia (respondent) for grave misconduct, consisting of alleged
unethical conduct in dealings with other persons.

The Facts

In their verified complaint, complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand
letter2 dated February 15, 2009, copy furnished to various offices and persons, which
contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the demand
letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients. Complainants
likewise posited that several news clippings 3 that were attached to the demand letter
were intended to sow tear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof caused
them sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation. 4 Thus, they
maintained that respondent should be held administratively liable therefor.

In a Resolution5 dated July 22, 2009, the Court directed respondent to file his comment
to the verified complaint. However, for failure to serve the aforesaid Resolution at
respondent's address given by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the
complainants were then ordered6 to furnish the Court the complete and correct address
of respondent. Still, complainants failed to comply with the Court's directive; thus, the
Court resolved,7 among others, to refer the case to the IBP for investigation, report,
and recommendation, which set the case for a mandatory conference/hearing. 8 chanrobleslaw

Unfortunately, despite notices,9 complainants failed to appear for the scheduled

mandatory hearings. Likewise, the notices sent to respondent were returned unserved
with the notations "RTS Moved Out" and "RTS Unknown." Thus, in an Order 10 dated
October 24, 2014, the IBP directed the parties to submit their respective verified
position papers together with documentary exhibits, if any.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation11 dated May 29, 2015, the IBP -Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor, recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months for
violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Likewise, for
defying the lawful order of the IBP, the latter recommended that respondent be
declared in contempt of court and fined the amount of PI,000.00, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 12
chanrobleslaw

The IBP found that respondent failed to rebut complainants' allegations in their verified
complaint. Moreover, despite repeated notices and directives from the IBP to appear for
the mandatory hearings, as well as to file his pleadings, respondent failed to do so,
which was tantamount to defiance of the lawful orders of the IBP amounting to conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer. Finding that respondent did not intend to file any comment
and in the process, purposely delayed the resolution of the instant case, the IBP
recommended that respondent be held in contempt of court. 13 chanrobleslaw

In a Resolution14 dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt
and approve with modification the May 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation of the
IBP — CBD by suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months and deleting the fine imposed on him.

The Issue Before the Court    

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint.    

The Court's Ruling    

The Court has examined the records of this case and partially concurs with the findings
and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability.15 Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Rule 8.01. - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
In this case, the demand letter that respondent sent to complainants contained not
merely a demand for them to settle their monetary obligations to respondent's client,
but also used words that maligned their character. It also imputed crimes against
them, i.e., that they were criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and estafa. The
relevant portion of the demand letter states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

An early check on the records of some courts, credit-reporting agencies and law
enforcement offices revealed that the names 'MANOLO NUEZCA' and/or 'MANUELO
NUEZCA' and 'MILINIA NUEZCA' responded to our search being involved, then and now,
in some 'credit-related' cases and litigations. Other record check outcomes and results
use we however opt to defer disclosure in the meantime and shall be put in issue in the
proper forum as the need for them arise, [sic]

All such accumulated derogatory records shall in due time be reported to all the
appropriate entities, for the necessary disposition and "blacklisting" pursuant to the
newly-enacted law known as the "Credit Information Systems Act of 2008."

x  x x x

II.    Your several issued BDO checks in 2003 and thereabouts were all unencashed as
they proved to be "worthless and unfounded." By law, you are liable under BP 22
(Boun[c]ing Checks Law) and Art. 315, Par. 2 (d) SWINDLING/ESTAFA, RPC.

III.    For all your deceit, fraud, schemes and other manipulations to defraud Mrs.
Arcilla, taking advantage of her helplessness, age and handicaps to her grave and
serious damage, you are also criminally liable under ART. 318, OTHER DECEITS.
RPC.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Indeed, respondent could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative to the alleged
indebtedness of complainants to his client, made the demand for settlement thereof,
and refrained from the imputation of criminal offenses against them, especially
considering that there is a proper forum therefor and they have yet to be found
criminally liable by a court of proper jurisdiction. Respondent's use of demeaning and
immoderate language put complainants in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is
important to consider that several other persons had been copy furnished with the
demand letter. As such, respondent could have besmirched complainants' reputation to
its recipients.

At this juncture, it bears noting that respondent failed to answer the verified complaint
and attend the mandatory hearings set by the IBP. Hence, the claims and allegations of
the complainants remain uncontroverted. In Ngayan v. Tugade, 17 the Court ruled that
"[a lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at
the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and
illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138, ifules
of Court."18chanrobleslaw

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.19 Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. 20 In this
regard, all lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who
are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence, they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly.21 Thus, respondent ought to temper his words in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the court.

Anent the penalty to be imposed on respondent, the Court takes into consideration the
case of Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino v. Jose Concepcion Javier22 where
respondent-lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
month for employing offensive and improper language in his pleadings. In light thereof,
and considering that the IBP's recommended penalty is not commensurate to
respondent's misdeed in this case, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension for
one (1) month from the practice of law should be meted upon respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of violation of

Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.    

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's personal record as a member

of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 8.02
A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000

MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant, v. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES,

CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES, Respondents.

D E C I S IO N

VITUG, J.:JVITUG

Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof,
viz:

"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal
with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a
party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law."

Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law
Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert
Joaquin P. Bustos. Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College
("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for Damages, docketed
Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then
counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case which, in effect,
required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act of
respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.

In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that not one of his co-respondents had taken part in the
negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission Agreements complained of and
were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission
Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were executed for the
sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case involving nine students of AMACC who were
expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students, namely, Ian
Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon, Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven,
Signorelli A. Santiago, Michael Ejercito, and Cleo B. Villareiz,, were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE,
who apparently had caused to be published some objectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member
Student Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened, and after a series of hearings, it found the students guilty
of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student publication funds. The body recommended
the penalty of expulsion against the erring students.

The denial of the appeal made by the students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC President, gave rise to the
commencement of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of
Quezon City. While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were
separately executed by and/or in behalf of some of the expelled students, to wit: Letter of Apology, dated 27 May
1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by his mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with the AMACC
President; letter of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. Veronica B. De Leon for her daughter Melyda B. De Leon
and Re-Admission Agreement of 09 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of apology, dated 22 May 1997, of
Leila Joven, assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC President;
letter of apology, dated 22 September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re-Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997
with the AMACC President; and letter of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito, assisted by his
parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23 January 1997 with the AMACC President.

Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a Manifestation, dated 06 June
1997, was filed with the trial court where the civil case was pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for defendant AMACC. A copy of the manifestation was furnished
complainant. In his Resolution, dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court thereupon
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.

On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP") passed Resolution No. XIII-
99-163, thus:

"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex
'A,' and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
with an amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for
being remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents for they did not take part in the
negotiation of the case."

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 plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent
Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-
30549. This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the
canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the administrative aspect of the
controversy is belied by the Manifestation 1 which, among other things, explicitly contained the following
stipulation; viz:

"1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their parents/guardian
already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President, AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt
for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings which they may have against the AMACC arising from
their previous dismissal.

"x x x......x x x......x x x

"3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 will by filed
them."

The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their
findings; nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty
given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent.

WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. The case against the other
respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member of the
Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.