LEGAL ETHICS DIGEST 31-35

RICAFORT V MEDINA (LEONEN CASE)

Facts:

Complainant Dionnie Ricafort filed a complaint for disbarment1 against respondent Atty. Rene Medina.
Complainant alleged that his tricycle sideswiped respondent's car along Sarvida Street in Surigao City.
Respondent alighted from his car and confronted complainant. Respondent allegedly snapped at
complainant, saying: "Wa ka makaila sa [ako]?" ("Do you not know me?") Respondent proceeded to slap
complainant, and then left.

Later, Manuel Cuizon, a traffic aide, informed complainant of the plate number of respondent's car.
Complainant later learned that the driver of the car was Atty. Rene 0. Medina, a provincial board
member of Surigao del Norte. According to complainant, he felt "hurt, embarrassed[,] and humiliated."
Respondent's act showed arrogance and disrespect for his oath of office as a lawyer. Complainant
alleged that this act constituted gross misconduct.

Defense of Respondent-Lawyer/Judge:

Respondent denied slapping complainant. When respondent alighted from his car to check the damage,
complainant approached him in an unfriendly manner. Respondent pushed complainant on the chest to
defend himself. No traffic officer was present during the incident. Also, the parties already settled
whatever issue that might have arisen out of the incident during the conciliation proceedings before the
Office of the Punong Barangay. During the proceedings, respondent explained that he pushed
complainant because of fear that complainant was carrying a weapon, as he assumed tricycle drivers
did. On the other hand, complainant explained that he went near respondent to check if there was
damage to respondent's car. As part of the settlement, respondent agreed to no longer demand any
indemnity for the damage caused by the tricycle to his car.

Issue: WON the respondent should be suspended.

Ruling of IBP Investigating/Disciplinary Board:

Commissioner De La Rama recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 60 days
from notice for misconduct and violation of Canon 7, Rule 7 .03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He found that contrary to respondent's claim, there was indeed a slapping incident. The
slapping incident was witnessed by one Manuel Cuizon

Ruling of IBP Board of Governor: Modified suspension up to 30 days only.

Ruling of SC:

YES. There is sufficient proof to establish that respondent slapped complainant. The slapping incident
was not only alleged by complainant in detail in his signed and notarized Affidavit; complainant's
Affidavit was also supported by the signed and notarized Affidavit of a traffic aide present during the
incident. It was even the traffic aide who informed complainant of respondent's plate number.
In finding that complainant was slapped by respondent, Commissioner De La Rama gave weight to the
letter sent by the League of Mayors and ruled that "the people's faith in the legal profession eroded"
because of respondent's act of slapping complainant. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors correctly affirmed and adopted this finding. The purpose of administrative proceedings is to
ensure that the public is protected from lawyers who are no longer fit for the profession. In this
instance, this Court will not tolerate the arrogance of and harassment committed by its officers.

Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: 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.

By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the face hints of a character
that disregards the human dignity of another. Respondent's question to complainant, "Wa ka makaila sa
ako?" ("Do you not know me?") confirms such character and his potential to abuse the profession as a
tool for bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating a stereotype that is
unreflective of the nobility of the profession. As officers of the court and of the law, lawyers are granted
the privilege to serve the public, not to bully them to submission. Good character is a continuing
qualification for lawyers. This Court has the power to impose disciplinary sanctions to lawyers who
commit acts of misconduct in either a public or private capacity if the acts show them unworthy to
remain officers of the court.

Canon Applicable: (Based on Syllabus)

Canon 7 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.

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. UNTIAN

Facts:

Subject of this Resolution is an Anonymous Complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.
(respondent) for his alleged sexual harassment of students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City
(Xavier).

One student claimed that respondent initially expressed amorous interest when he sent her flowers
anonymously through another law student; that he would often text her through the phone of another
law student then eventually through his own phone where he would send romantic messages, poems,
love notes and sweet nothings. She said that respondent also invited her to go to Camiguin with another
law student but she turned it down.

Another narrated that respondent showed her a photograph revealing only the face of a woman and
asked her if she knew who the woman in the picture was. After she realized that the woman in the
picture looked like her, respondent revealed the entire photograph revealing a naked woman and
teased her within hearing distance of other law students. She denied that she was the woman because
she had a distinctive mark on her back for the past six years. She averred that the incident caused her
depression, fearing what other law students may think of her. She was unable to participate in a
scheduled moot court competition because she broke down in the middle of practice and cried
uncontrollably.

The last victim recounted that in one of her recitations during respondent's class, she clarified a question
propounded to her saying "Sir, come again?" Respondent retorted "What? You want me to come again?
I have not come the first time and don't you know that it took me five minutes to come, and you want
me to come again?" She later learned that respondent would narrate the said incident to almost all of
his classes. She felt offended that she was subjected to such sexually charged language and the fact that
her embarrassment was retold in other classes.

Committee on Decorum recommended that respondent's teaching contract not be renewed on account
of the accusations of sexual harassment against him. It explained that respondent was guilty of violating
Xavier's anti-sexual harassment guidelines. The Committee on Decorum noted that respondent's
unwanted sexual advances or innuendos caused distress to the complaining students as it created a
hostile or offensive environment.

Defense of Respondent-Lawyer/Judge:

Respondent lamented that the complaints for sexual harassment was made by disgruntled students who
failed their classes for the 2001-2002 school year as manifested by the fact that the incidents happened
years apart but the complaints were made all at the same time. Respondent denied sending flowers and
text messages with romantic undertones to Toyco. He highlighted that it was in fact her who gave him
gifts during Valentine's Day in 2002. Respondent added that he texting "luv u" and "miss u" are friendly
text messages sent without malice especially considering that they were misspelled.

Issue: WON respondent be suspended.

Ruling of IBP Investigating/Disciplinary Board:

Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Commissioner Hababag) recommended that respondent be

suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Ruling of IBP Board of Governor:

Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) affirmed with modification the
recommendation of Commissioner Hababag. It resolved to disbar respondent on the ground of gross
immoral conduct. But upon MR, reduced the penalty to two years suspension and directed the Director
of the Commission on Bar Discipline to prepare an extended resolution explaining its actions.

The IBP-BOG opined that respondent was not guilty of violating R.A. No. 7877 because there was no
evidence to show that he demanded or requested sexual favors from the complainants. Nevertheless, it
found respondent's action unacceptable and conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.

Ruling of SC:

YES. R.A. No. 7877 does not require that the victim had acceded to the sexual desires of the abuser.
Further, it is not necessary that a demand or request for sexual favor is articulated in a categorical
manner as it may be discerned from the acts of the offender. In addition, sexual harassment is also
committed in an educational environment when the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment. In short, it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to be sexual
harassment as a superior's conduct with sexual underpinnings, which offends the victim or creates a
hostile environment would suffice.

In Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court
explained that the essence of sexual harassment is not the violation of the victim's sexuality but the
abuse of power by the offender. In other words, what the law aims to punish is the undue exercise of
power and authority manifested through sexually charged conduct or one filled with sexual undertones.

Respondent's actions towards the students concerned definitely constitute sexual harassment as
defined by R.A. No. 7877 and the pertinent rules and regulation. A reading of respondent's Answer
would show that he substantially admitted the accusations against him, although providing a
justification for them. Respondent's conduct towards Sagarbarria, Dal and Toyco created a hostile and
offensive environment which has no place in a learning institution.

Clearly, respondent abused the power and authority he possessed over the complainants. His sexually
laced conduct had created a hostile and offensive environment which deeply prejudiced his students. In
what was supposed to be a safe place for them to learn and develop, they were instead subjected to
unwarranted sexual advances.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer shall not engage in an
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. On the other hand, Canon 7 mandates that lawyers
shall, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Further, Rule 7.03 of the CPR
commands lawyers not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, or
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. As this Court often reminds
members of the bar, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.

Canon Applicable: (Based on Syllabus)

Canon 7 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.

MALABED V DELA PENA

Facts:

This is an administrative complaint filed by Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Atty. Meljohn B. De la
Peña (respondent) for dishonesty and grave misconduct.

1. Complainant claimed that the Certificate to File Action in the complaint filed by respondent refers to
a different complaint, that is the complaint filed by complainant's brother against Fortunato Jadulco.
In effect, there was no Certificate to File Action, which is required for the filing of a civil action, in the
complaint filed by respondent on behalf of his client Fortunato.
 2. Complainant alleged that respondent did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the free patent
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730, but respondent forwarded a copy to the CA.
Complainant claimed that she could not properly defend herself without a copy of the title. She
further claimed that the title presented by respondent was fabricated presenting Certifications from
the DENR and the RD, allegedly confirming that there is no file in their offices of the said OCT.

3. Complainant also alleged that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented
the occupants of the lot owned by complainant's family, who previously donated a parcel of
land to the Roman Catholic Church, which deed of donation respondent notarized.

4. Complainant further accused respondent of conniving with RTC Judge Asis, who was his former
client in an administrative case, to rule in his clients' favor. Complainant narrated the outcomes
in the "cases of Estrellers which were filed in the MCTC and reversed by the RTC, in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction to favor respondent x x x and his client[s]

Defense of Respondent-Lawyer/Judge:

Respondent basically denied the charges against him. Respondent also claimed that the free patent title
was attached to the folio of the records and he furnished a copy of the same to complainant's counsel.
Assuming opposing counsel was not furnished, respondent wondered why he raised this matter only
upon filing of the instant complaint. He also argued that notarization of the deed of donation had no
relation to the case filed against the occupants of the lot. Respondent likewise stressed that the matter
regarding Judge Asis's rulings favorable to his clients should be addressed to Judge Asis himself.

Issue: WON respondent be suspended for being guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Ruling of IBP Investigating/Disciplinary Board:

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner the foul language used by respondent in his
pleadings submitted before the IBP. Respondent described complainant's counsel as "silahis" and
accused complainant of "cohabiting with a married man x x x before the wife of that married man died."
According to the IBP Commissioner, such offensive language "[is a] clear manifestation[] of respondent's
gross misconduct that seriously affect his standing and character as an officer of the court." With respect
to the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct, the IBP Commissioner found that respondent is
guilty of the same "as evidenced by the numerous documents attached by complainant in all the
pleadings she has submitted." The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for one year.

Ruling of IBP Board of Governor: Adopted the IBP Com’s decision.

Ruling of SC:

Yes. Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

1. Using foul language in pleadings. While respondent is entitled and very much expected to
defend himself with vigor, he must refrain from using improper language in his pleadings. In
Saberon v. Larong, we stated: [W]hile a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language
 abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. For using improper language in his pleadings,
respondent violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR.
2. Non-submission of certificate to file action. The submission of the certificate to file action, which
evidences the non-conciliation between the parties in the barangay, is a pre-condition for the
filing of a complaint in court. The Certificate of Endorsement did not exist yet when the
complaint was filed. In other words, there is no truth to respondent's allegation that the subject
matter of the case was brought before the Lupon Tagapamayapa and that a certificate to file
action was issued prior to the filing of the complaint. Clearly, respondent misrepresented that
he filed a certificate to file action when there was none, which act violated Canon 10, Rule
10.01, and Rule 10.02 of the CPR.
3. Gross Misconduct. In sum, respondent committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that
he submitted a certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there
was none prior to the institution of the civil action of his client, Fortunato (2) using improper
language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition on reemployment in
any government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge.

Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." In view of respondent's
repeated gross misconduct, we increase the IBP's recommended penalty to suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years.

Canon Applicable: (Based on Syllabus)

Canon 8, Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper,

THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE ETC. V LAZARO

Facts

Atty. Chavez was the private legal counsel of Eliseo Osorno- the accused while Attys Lazaro and Morta
were the legal counsel of the private complainant of the said criminal case for libel. Atty Chavez
appeared before the court to seek cancellation of the arraignment of the criminal case as their party
filed a Petition for Review before DOJ a day before the hearing. Citing the filing of Petition for Review,
Atty. Chavez moved for suspension of the arraignment fora period of 60 days pursuant to Rule 116
Section 11 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, however the same was denied by the court and
proceeded to Soriano’s arraignment. In such instance, Atty Chavez filed a Motion for Inhibition for
presiding Judge of the criminal case on the grounds that the Judge was biased against its client. The
respondents filed a vehement opposition for inhibition and instead accused the complainant of
antedating the petition for review. A counter complaint-affidavit was filed by Atty Chavez’s party
attaching a copy of the petition review motion bearing DOJ stamp and sought disbarment complaint
against the respondents.

Defense of Respondent-Lawyer/Judge:

In their MR after the IBP board of Governor, they argued that the Complaint against them should have
been dismissed on the following grounds: (a) complainant's failure to implead the public prosecutor,
who must be considered an indispensable party to the case, since the pleading in question could not
have been filed without her conformity; (b) as the subject pleadings had been signed by the public
prosecutor, their contents enjoyed the presumption of regularity and legality, upon which respondents
were entitled to rely; (c) respondents relied in good faith on the review, supervision and direction of the
public prosecutor in the filing of the pleading in question; and (d) the statements in the pleading were
covered by the doctrine of privileged communication.Respondents also contended that Atty. Chavez
should be disciplined for the derogatory statements made against them in the pleadings he submitted
during the IBP investigation.

Issue: WON the IBP BOG was correct in dismissing the case.

Ruling of IBP Investigating/Disciplinary Board:

Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility ruling that “We agree with the complainant that the accusation that they antedated the
mailing of the DO.I petition is violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the duty of all
lawyers to observe civility and propriety in their pleadings.” IBP Commissioner recommended that
respondent Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta be reprimanded for using improper language in
their pleadings with a warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

Ruling of IBP Board of Governor:

They adopted and approved IBP Com’s decision. However, after the MR, IBP Board of Governors issued
Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 granting respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and recommending the
dismissal of the instant case on the basis of complainant's failure to implead an indispensable party.

Ruling of SC:

NO. The Court is convinced that there is sufficient justification to discipline respondents for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

1. Non-joinder of a party is not a ground to dismiss a disciplinary proceeding.

2. Respondents violated Canons 8 and JO of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
finds respondents guilty of violating Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and temperate language in the
preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Their arguments,
whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the opposing counsel and
should consist only of such words as may be properly addressed by one honorable member of
the bar to another.

In this case, respondents twice accused complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the
DOJ without any proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought
complainant and its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the courts, as
it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The
Court cannot condone this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive language does not merit the
ultimate penalty of disbarment. Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility and sternly warned that the Court will deal with future
similar conduct more severely. The respondents are hereby admonished and sternly warned.

Canon Applicable: (Based on Syllabus)

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL.

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

BELO-HENARES V GUEVARRA

Facts:

This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by complainant
Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares against respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra for alleged
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a
engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery. 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.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing
complainant. 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. Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook
account, posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual
basis and without proof.

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 letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the
instant complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Defense of Respondent-Lawyer/Judge:

In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-
guaranteed right to privacy, 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. 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. He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in
order to inspire public hatred against complainant. 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. Finally, respondent pointed out
that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.

Issue: WON respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.

Ruling of IBP Investigating/Disciplinary Board:

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.It
held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03, Rule 8.01 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for having posted the 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.

Ruling of IBP Board of Governor: Adopted the IBP Com’s decision but after MR, the IBP Board of
Governors partially granted respondent's motion, reducing the penalty from one (1) year to six (6)
months suspension.

Ruling of SC:

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:
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.

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.

"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."

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

Canon Applicable: (Based on Syllabus)

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