SECOND DIVISION
 Instead of having the alleged forged
[A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010.]
ATTY. BONIFACIO
T. BARANDON, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY.
EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J p:
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. TDESCa
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.
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 DTAIaH
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 Recommendation 9 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.
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. SaIEcA
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.

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. aHIDAE
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
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.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.
||| (Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 5768, [March 26, 2010], 630
PHIL 524-533)

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
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002.]
ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs.
ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO, respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, District Public Attorney of the
Public Attorney's Office in San Jose, Antique filed 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 in the latter's office. In his Comment,
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 to put a sign outside prohibiting "standbys" from
hanging around in the Public Attorney's Office. Accordingly, 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. For
this reason, it recommended that respondent be reprimanded and
warned that repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely in the
future.
The Court found the recommendation of the IBP Committee
on Bar Discipline to be well taken. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are
duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times. In this case, respondent's
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. Thus, considering that
this is the first offense, Atty. Pefianco was fined in the amount of one
thousand pesos (P1,000) and reprimanded.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY; LAWYERS MUST CONDUCT THEMSELVES WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD THEIR FELLOW
LAWYERS. — Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold
the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and
candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without
reproach at all times.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATED BY A LAWYER WHO MEDDLED
IN A MATTER WHICH HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SO. — In this case,
respondent's 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RESPONDENT'S MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS
WAS NEGATED BY THE WAY HE CHOSE TO EXPRESS HIS
INDIGNATION. — 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 Attorney's 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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. — 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. TDcHCa
DECISION
MENDOZA, J p:
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. IASTDE
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the
incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney's 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
Attorney's 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 Pefianco's 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 latter's 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
Attorney's 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!" ("You're
stupid!") Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off respondent's 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 Attorney's Office.
 Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Salvani
concerning the woman's case, complainant, with his bodyguard, arrived
and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorney's Office. He claimed
that two security guards also came, and complainant ordered them to
take respondent out of the office. Contrary to complainant's claims,
however, respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch
him and shout at him, "Gago ka!" ("You're 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 complainant's
allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at
him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him
(complainant).

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility 1 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. 2

In this case, respondent's 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 Attorney's 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.

||| (Alcantara v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 5398, [December 3, 2002], 441 PHIL

514-520)
 SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 3149. August 17, 1994.]
CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner, vs. ATTY.
ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent.
DECISION
PADILLA, J p:
Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty.
Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's disbarment for alleged malpractice
and grave misconduct.
The circumstances which led to the filing of this complaint are
as follows:
Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of
P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant executed a
promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to
Yap pension checks which she regularly received from the United States
government as a widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of
assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is
fully paid. Complainant likewise executed a special power of attorney
authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks
from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents were
apparently prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim,
Yap's counsel.
On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after the
execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant
informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the
special power of attorney. As a consequence, Geesnell Yap filed a
complainant for injunction with damages against complainant.
Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys.
Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for complainant (as
defendant).
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on
23 January 1985, preventing complainant from getting her pension
checks from the Tagbilaran City post office. Yap later filed an urgent
omnibus motion to cite complainant in contempt of court for attempting
to circumvent the preliminary injunction by changing her address to
Mandaue city. Upon motion by Yap, the court also issued an order dated
21 May 1985 expanding all post offices in the Philippines from releasing
pension checks to complainant.
On 26 July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to
allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks. This motion does not
bear the signatures of complainants' counsel of record but only the
signatures of both parties, "assisted by" respondent Attorney Alexander
H. Lim.
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a
compromise agreement again without the participation of the former's
counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated that complainant
Cerino B. Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was
likewise stated therein that complainant and Yap agreed that the amount
would be paid in monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an
interest of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months. The
compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 August
1985.
On 24 November 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed the present
complaint for disbarment, based on the following allegations:
"7. In all these motions, complainant
was prevented from seeking assistance, advise
and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no
copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at
least to complainant herself despite the latter's
pleas to be furnished copies of the same;
8. Complainant was even advised by
respondent that it was not necessary for her to
consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a)
this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she
would only be incurring enormous expense if she
consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was
assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry
about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to
save her time; and in any event respondent
already took care of everything;
9. Complainant had been prevented
from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud,
deception and some other form of mendacity
practiced on her respondent;
10. Finally, respondent fraudulently or
without authority assumed to represent
complainant and connived in her defeat; . . ." 1
Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for
complainant, Atty. Roland B. Inting had abandoned his client.
Atty. Lim further stated that the other counsel, Atty. Enrico Aumentado,
did not actively participate in the case and it was upon the request of
complainant and another debtor of Yap, Crispina Acuna, that he
(respondent) made the compromise agreement.
Respondent states that he first instructed complainant to notify
her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned her since
she could not pay his attorney's fees.
Complainant filed a reply denying that she had been
abandoned by her lawyers. Complainant stated that respondent never
furnished her lawyers with copies of the compromise agreement and a
motion to withdraw the injunction cash bond deposited by Yap.
At the outset, it is worth noting that the terms of the
compromise agreement are indeed grossly loaded in favor of Geesnell L.
Yap, respondent's client.
Complainant's original obligation was to pay P92,100.00 within
one (1) year from 4 October 1984. There is no provision in the promissory
note signed by her with respect to any interest to be paid. The only
additional amount which Yap could collect based on the promissory note
was 25% of the principal as attorney's fees in case a lawyer was hired by
him to collect the loan.
In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated 2
August 1985, complainant's debt to Yap was increased to
P150,000.00 (from 92,100.00) after the lapse of only ten (10) months.
This translates to an interest in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) per
annum. In addition, the compromise agreement provides that the
P150,000.00 debt would be payable in fifty-four (54) monthly installments
at an interest of forty percent (40%) per annum. No great amount of
mathematical prowess is required to see that the terms of the
compromise agreement are grossly prejudicial to complainant.
With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's
counsel of the compromise agreement, it is of record that complainant
was represented by two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting and Aumentado.
Complainant states that respondent prevented her from informing her
lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the complaint and
earlier quoted in this decision.
There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform
opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any
showing that respondent informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of the complainant by her counsel.
Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned
by her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the
situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement
which, as previously discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous
and prejudicial to complainant.
Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member
of the legal profession.
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:
"9. Negotiations with opposite party.
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 deal only 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 the
law."

The Code of Professional Responsibility states:

"Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.

Rule 8.02 — A 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.

Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not

represent conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts."

The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional

conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the imposition
upon him of the proper sanction from this Court. Such acts constituting
malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not
only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they
likewise prevent justice from being attained.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby

imposed the penalty SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period
of ONE (1) YEAR, effective immediately upon his receipt of this
decision.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in respondent's

personal record as attorney and 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.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

||| (Likong v. Lim, A.C. No. 3149, [August 17, 1994])


FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10449. July 28, 2014.]
FRANCISCO BINAY-AN, ET AL., petitioner, vs.
ATTY. ATANACIO D. ADDOG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated July 28, 2014 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10449 (Francisco Binay-an, et al. vs. Atty.
Atanacio D. Addog). — The complainants are heirs of Barot Binay-
an and plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07 for Annulment of
Documents filed with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP), La Trinidad, Benguet, against the defendants Angeline Damaso
(Damaso) and the Cordillera Small Business Assistance Center, Inc.
The complainants are represented in said case by Atty. Jerome W.
Selmo (Atty. Selmo), while Atty. Atanacio D. Addog (respondent)
represented the defendants.
According to the complainants, on February 8, 2008, Damaso,
who is the constituted representative of the heirs of Barot Binay-an,
called for a meeting in Mandarin Restaurant. Paul Palos (Paul) and
Bienvenido Palos (Bienvenido), who are also heirs of Barot Binay-
an and their co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07, and the
respondent were present in the meeting. During the meeting, Damaso
and the respondent managed to convince Paul and Bienvenido to
execute separate Affidavits of Desistance, which were later notarized by
the respondent. The respondent subsequently submitted the Affidavits
of Desistance to the NCIP, which the NCIP Hearing Officer denied. The
NCIP Hearing Officer also cautioned the respondent on the ethical
consideration in having the affidavits submitted. The respondent later
withdrew his representation for the defendants. Thus, the complaint for
misconduct against the respondent, which was filed with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD No. 08-2303. 1
In his answer, while admitting that he was present during the
meeting in Mandarin Restaurant and notarized the affidavits of
desistance, the respondent denied the complainants' charges and stated
that: Paul and Bienvenido's affidavits of desistance were freely
executed; he was not "lawyering" for Paul and Bienvenido; and he
submitted the affidavits to the NCIP in behalf of his clients and not in
representation of the complainants, among others. 2
In Resolution No. XIX-2011-191 3 dated May 14, 2011, the
IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification,
the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in 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 taking into
consideration the seriousness of the misconduct
committed, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months with Warning that a repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied by the IBP Board of Governors per Resolution No. XX-2014-
18 4 dated February 11, 2014. In a Report 5 dated June 18, 2014, the
Bar Confidant noted that "[t]o date, no petition for review or motion for
reconsideration has been filed by either party." 6
Finding the IBP Board of Governors' resolutions to be in order,
and the Investigating Commissioner's report to be in accord with the
rules and the evidence presented, the Court hereby adopts the same.
The Investigating Commissioner found merit in the complaint
against the respondent and made the following findings:
Respondent, despite knowing that the
Complainants Palos were not represented by a
counsel during that meeting they had with
defendant Angeline Damaso, communicated with
the Palos and in fact indications are ripe that it was
he who convinced them to execute their affidavits
of desistance in exchange for monetary
consideration. This presumption is strongly
supported by the fact that the affidavits were
prepared and notarized by him during the said
meeting. Significantly, he did not take it upon
himself to inform Atty. Jerome W. Selmo about the
act of his clients. He too failed to advise the Palos
to first consult their counsel about it. In fact he
showed that he needed the affidavits badly as in
fact he went on to present the same to the NCIP
Hearing Officer to prove that the Palos had clearly
wanted to withdraw their complaint against the
defendants. The affidavits of desistance [were],
however, rejected by the NCIP Hearing
Officer. 7 aIcDCT
The foregoing findings are supported by the records on hand.
Moreover, as shown during the mandatory conference held on February
20, 2009, the respondent even admitted that he was the one who
prepared and notarized the joint affidavit of desistance signed by Paul,
Isabela Daniel and Romana Palos (Romana). 8 As regards the affidavit of
Bienvenido, the respondent denied drafting the same; nevertheless, he
admitted that he notarized it in his office. 9
Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states:
A 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.
(Emphasis ours)
In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido
were represented by counsel, Atty. Selmo. His act of preparing the
affidavit of desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of
Paul, Isabela Daniel and Romana which he drafted and notarized was
true, nonetheless encroached upon the legal functions of Atty. Selmo.
Worse, the respondent even disclosed that the affidavits of
desistance were executed by the affiants in exchange for a certain sum of
money. Thus:
ATTY. ADDOG:
 Yes, Your Honor, are claiming certain amount
which is [P]100,000.00 each, Your
Honor, in exchange for the withdrawal of
the complaint filed in NCIP, Your Honor.
So, I have advised them, if that is the
case, for the protection of my clients you
execute this affidavit of desistance. So,
that was signed. 11
xxx xxx xxx
COMM. CACHAPERO:
 Are you saying, Atty. Addog that those who
executed affidavits have already
received [P]100,000.00?
ATTY. ADDOG:
 Yes, Your Honor. 12
It was unscrupulous of the respondent to compel some of the
complainants in Civil Case No. 005-CAR-07 to execute the affidavit of
desistance sans the knowledge and agreement of Atty. Selmo. In this
regard, the respondent should have been mindful of the canon dictating
that:
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
deal only 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 the law. 13 (Emphasis ours)

In Likong v. Lim, 14 the Court disciplined and imposed a

penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on a lawyer
who prepared a compromise agreement between the parties
in an action for injunction with damages, without informing the opposing
counsel of the agreement. The Court concluded, "[u]ndoubtedly,
respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal
profession." 15

Similarly in this case, the respondent's acts clearly violated

the ethical tenets of the legal profession and must, therefore, be
disciplined. "Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct
cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and
trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being
attained." 16

WHEREFORE, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby imposed

the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution,
with WARNING that commission of the same or similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in

the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and
be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED."

Very
truly
yours,
 
(SGD.)
EDGAR O.
ARICHET
A
Division
Clerk of
||| (Binay-an v. Addog, A.C. No. 10449 (Notice), [July 28, 2014])
 EN BANC
[A.C. No. 7594. February 9, 2016.]
ADELPHA E.
MALABED, complainant, vs. ATTY. MELJOHN
B. DE LA PEÑA, respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J p:
The Case
Before the Court is an administrative complaint filed by
Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Atty. Meljohn B. De la
Peña (respondent) for dishonesty and grave misconduct.
The Facts
In her Complaint 1 dated 7 August 2007, complainant
charged respondent with dishonesty for "deliberately and
repeatedly making falsehood" that "misled the Court." First,
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 Jadulco.
Second, 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 Court of Appeals. 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. To support such claim, complainant presented
Certifications from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and the Registry of Deeds in Naval, Biliran,
allegedly confirming that there is no file in their offices of OCT No.
1730.
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.
Complainant further accused respondent of conniving
with Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naval, Biliran, Branch 16 Judge
Enrique C. 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
[Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)] and reversed by the RTC, in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to favor respondent . . . and
his client[s] . . . ."
Complainant charged respondent with grave misconduct
when he defied the accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge.
Respondent worked as Associate Dean and Professor of the Naval
Institute of Technology (NIT) — University of Eastern Philippines
College of Law, which is a government institution, and received
salaries therefor, in violation of the accessory penalty of dismissal
which is his perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any
government office.
In his Comment 2 dated 16 December 2007, respondent
basically denied the charges against him. Respondent alleged that
"the [Certificate to File Action] he used when he filed Civil Case No.
[B-]1118 for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
16, Naval, Biliran was the certification of Lupon Chairman, the late
Rodulfo Catigbe, issued on May 9, 2001." 3
Respondent also claimed that the free patent title was
attached to the folio of the records in Civil Case No. B-1118 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. HSAcaE
Respondent 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.
As regards the charge of grave misconduct for defying the
accessory penalty of dismissal from the service, respondent
admitted that he accepted the positions of Associate Dean and
Professor of the NIT — University of Eastern Philippines College of
Law, which is a government institution. However, respondent
countered that he was no longer connected with the NIT College of
Law; and thus, this issue had become moot. Respondent further
claimed that his designation as Assistant Dean was only temporary,
and he had not received any salary except honorarium. Respondent
stated that he even furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
and the MCLE Office a copy of his designation as Associate Dean,
and since there were no objections, he proceeded to perform the
functions appurtenant thereto. He likewise submitted an affidavit
from Edgardo Garcia, complainant in the administrative case against
him, who interposed no objection to his petition for judicial clemency
filed before this Court.
Complainant filed a Reply-Affidavit 4 on 22 January 2008.
Respondent filed a Rejoinder to Reply 5 on 20 February 2008.
Complainant filed a Sur-rejoinder to the Rejoinder to Reply 6 on 20
February 2008. All these submissions basically reiterated the
respective arguments of the parties and denied each other's
allegations.
The Ruling of the IBP
In his Report and Recommendation, 7 Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz noted 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 . . . 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." Respondent
committed acts of dishonesty and grave misconduct (1) for using a
Certificate to File Action which was used in a complaint filed by
complainant's brother Conrado Estreller against Fortunato Jadulco,
who is respondent's client; (2) for not furnishing complainant's
counsel with a copy of the free patent covered by OCT No. 1730
which was attached to the Comment respondent filed with the Court
of Appeals; and (3) for accepting the positions of Associate Dean
and Professor of the NIT — University of Eastern Philippines College
of Law and receiving salaries therefor, in violation of the accessory
penalty of prohibition on reemployment in any government office as
a result of his dismissal as a judge.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year. 8
On 28 October 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued a
Resolution adopting the IBP Commissioner's recommendation. The
Resolution reads:
RESOLUTION NO. XX-
2011-137
Adm. Case No. 7594
Adelpha E. Malabed vs.
Atty. Meljohn De La Peña
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
APPROVED the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner in 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 finding Respondent guilty of
dishonesty and grave misconduct, Atty. Meljohn
B. De La Peña is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year. 9 HESIcT
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether respondent is guilty
of dishonesty and grave misconduct.
The Ruling of the Court
 Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
Using foul language in pleadings
In his Comment, respondent called complainant's
counsel "silahis by nature and complexion" 10 and accused
complainant of "cohabiting with a married man . . . before the wife
of that married man died." 11 In his Rejoinder, respondent
maintained that such language is not foul, but a "dissertation of
truth designed to debunk complainant's and her counsel's
credibility in filing the administrative case." 12
We are not convinced. Aside from such language being
inappropriate, it is irrelevant to the resolution of this case. 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, 13 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.
On many occasions, the Court has
reminded members of the Bar to abstain from
all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party
or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged. In keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyer's language even in his pleadings must
be dignified.
For using improper language in his pleadings,
respondent violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states:
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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. 14 Complainant claims that there is no such certificate in the
complaint filed by respondent on behalf of Fortunato Jadulco, et al.
Instead, what respondent submitted was the certificate to file action
in the complaint filed by complainant's brother, Conrado Estreller,
against Fortunato Jadulco. 15
Respondent counters that what he used "when he filed
Civil Case No. [B-]1118 for Quieting of Title, etc. . . . was the
certification . . . issued on May 9, 2001, . . . ."
Based on the records, the complaint for quieting of title in
Civil Case No. B-1118 was filed with the RTC on 18 October 2000.
The Certificate of Endorsement, which respondent claimed was the
certificate to file action he used in Civil Case No. B-1118, was
issued on 9 May 2001, or after the filing of the complaint on 18
October 2000. It is apparent that the Certificate of Endorsement did
not exist yet when the complaint in Civil Case No. B-1118 was filed.
In other words, there is no truth to respondent's allegation that the
subject matter of Civil Case No. B-1118 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 Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
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, . . . .
Failure to furnish opposing counsel with copy of title
With regard to respondent's alleged act of not furnishing
complainant's counsel with a copy of the free patent title, we find
that it does not constitute dishonesty.
Admittedly, the Court of Appeals was furnished a copy of
OCT No. 1730, which means that a copy of the title exists. There
is no showing that respondent deliberately did not furnish
complainant's counsel with a copy of the title. The remedy of
complainant should have been to file with the Court of Appeals a
motion to furnish complainant or counsel with a copy of the title so
she and her counsel could examine the same.
Moreover, whether OCT No. 1730 is fabricated, as
complainant alleges, is a question of fact demanding an examination
of the parties' respective evidence. Obviously, this matter falls
outside the scope of this administrative case, absent any clear and
convincing proof that respondent himself orchestrated such
fabrication. The DENR and Registry of Deeds certifications do not
prove that respondent manufactured OCT No. 1730. Such
documents merely confirm that OCT No. 1730 does not exist in their
official records. caITAC
Conflict of interest
Complainant accuses respondent of conflict of interest
when the latter allegedly notarized a deed of donation of a parcel of
land executed by complainant's family in favor of the Roman
Catholic Church. Eventually, respondent allegedly sought to litigate
as counsel for the opposing parties who are occupants in the lot
owned by complainant's family.
Suffice to state that notarization is different from
representation. A notary public simply performs the notarial acts
authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely,
acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature
witnessings, and copy certifications. Legal representation, on the
other hand, refers to the act of assisting a party as counsel in a court
action.
As regards complainant's serious accusations against
respondent of conniving with Judge Asis and conspiring with the
latter to render judgments favorable to respondent's clients, such are
bare allegations, without any proof. Complainant simply narrated the
outcomes of the proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 1017, 860 and 973,
which were filed by the Estrellers in the MCTC and reversed by the
RTC. Complainant conveniently failed to present any concrete
evidence proving her grave accusation of conspiracy between
respondent and Judge Asis. Moreover, charges of bias and partiality
on the part of the presiding judge should be filed against the judge,
and not against the counsel allegedly favored by the judge.
Violation of prohibition on reemployment in government office
In our 9 February 1994 Resolution, 16 we dismissed
respondent as Acting Judge of Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Leyte
and Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Caibiran-
Culaba, Leyte for partiality, with prejudice to reappointment to any
public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
There is no dispute that respondent knows full well the
consequences of his dismissal as a judge, one of which is the
accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in
any government office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. Despite being disqualified, respondent accepted the
positions of Associate Dean and Professor of NIT-College of Law, a
government institution, and received compensation therefor.
Respondent alleges that his designation was only
temporary, and "no fixed salary was attached to his designation
except for honorarium." Respondent also claims that he furnished a
copy of his designation to the OBC and MCLE office as a "gesture of
. . . respect, courtesy and approval from the Supreme Court." He
further avers that complainant in the administrative case against him
(as a judge) posed no objection to his petition for clemency.
Respondent's contentions are untenable. The prohibition
on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent and
temporary appointments. Hence, that his designation was only
temporary does not absolve him from liability. Further, furnishing a
copy of his designation to the OBC and MCLE office does not in any
way extinguish his permanent disqualification from reemployment in
a government office. Neither does the fact that complainant in his
previous administrative case did not object to his petition for
clemency.
In view of his disqualification from reemployment in any
government office, respondent should have declined from accepting
the designation and desisted from performing the functions of such
positions. 17 Clearly, respondent knowingly defied the prohibition on
reemployment in a public office imposed upon him by the Court.
In Santeco v. Avance, 18 where respondent lawyer
"willfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice
despite the five-year suspension order," the Court held that failure to
comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct,
 insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer's suspension or
even disbarment.
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 Jadulco, in
Civil Case No. B-1118; (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." 19
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, gross
misconduct is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. — A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. ICHDca
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.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Meljohn B. De
la Peña GUILTY of gross misconduct and
accordingly SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2)
years with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar
act or acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and all
courts in the Philippines for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta,
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe,
Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, * J., is on leave.
Caguioa, ** J., is on official leave.
||| (Malabed v. De La Peña, A.C. No. 7594, [February 9, 2016], 780
PHIL 462-472)
 FIRST DIVISION 1. Allegedly, the Presiding Judge
exhibited bias, partiality,
prejudice and has pre-
[A.C. No. 7045. September 5, 2016.] judged the case
against the accused when he
proceeded
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEO with the arraignment
CHE represented by its founding partner, despite the pendency of a
ATTY. FRANCISCO petition for review filed
I. CHAVEZ, complainant, vs. ATTYS. with the Department of Justice
RESTITUTO S. LAZARO and RODEL R. .
MORTA, respondents.
2. They alleged that on October 10,
2005, or the day
before the scheduled
arraignment, they have
RESOLUTION filed the petition.
3. They cited Rule 116, Section
11(c) of the Revised Rules 
of Criminal Procedure, where
SERENO, C.J p: it is provided that upon
motion, the arraignment of the 
On 8 February
accused shall be suspended
2006, the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche (complainant),
when a petition for
through its founding partner, Atty. Francisco M. Chavez, filed a
review of the resolution of the 
Complaint-Affidavit 1 before this Court. Complainant
prosecutor is pending.
sought the disbarment of Attys. Restituto S. Lazaro and Rodel R.
Morta (respondents) for violation of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code  4. We contemplated over this matter. If
of Professional Responsibility. It was alleged that respondents indeed the petition was duly
falsely and maliciously accused complainant and its filed with the DOJ on
lawyers of antedating a Petition for Review filed October 10, 2005, why is it
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October 2005. 2 that the accused did not
present a
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
copy of the petition
The circumstances, which led to the filing of this stamped "received"
administrative complaint, occurred in connection with Criminal by the DOJ? Why did he not
Case No. Q-05-136678. The latter was a case for libel then make a manifestation that
pending against Eliseo F. Soriano before Branch he forgot to bring a copy?
218 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon He could have easily
City. 3 Complainant acted as the legal counsel of Soriano in that convinced the Presiding
case while respondents represented private complainant Michael Judge to
M. Sandoval. 4 suspend the arraignment
upon a promise that a copy
On 11 October 2005, lawyers from complainant law firm, thereof will be filed
led by Atty. Chavez, appeared before the RTC to with the court
seek the cancellation of Soriano's scheduled in the afternoon of October
arraignment. 5 During the hearing, Atty. Chavez informed the RTC 11, 2005 or
that a Petition for Review had been filed even the following day.
before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October
2005. The Petition 5. Thus, we come to the conclusion
questioned the resolution of the Office of the City that the accused was able to
Prosecutor of Quezon City finding probable cause to indict Soriano antedate the filing or
for libel. 6 Atty. Chavez presented an extra copy of the Petition for mailing of the petition. 13 (E
Review before the RTC, and explained that the main mphases supplied)
copy of the Petition stamped received by the DOJ was still The allegation of antedating was reiterated by
with the office messenger, who had personally respondents in a Comment/Opposition to the Accused's Motion for
filed the pleading the day before. 7 Citing the filing of the Petition Reconsideration filed with the RTC on 6 December 2006:
for Review, Atty. Chavez moved
for the suspension of the arraignment for a period of 60 days 4. It is our conclusion that the accused and
pursuant to Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Revised Rules of  his lawyers were able to antedate the filing
Criminal Procedure. 8 The RTC, however, denied the motion and or mailing of the petition. We cannot conclude
proceeded with Soriano's arraignment. 9 otherwise, unless the accused and his
battery of lawyers will admit that on October 11,
The events that transpired during the arraignment led 2005 that they suddenly or temporarily became
complainant to conclude that Presiding Judge Hilario amnesiacs. They forgot that they
Laqui of Branch 218 was biased against its filed the Petition for Review the day
client. 10 Consequently, it filed a Motion for Inhibition on 18 before. 14 (Emphasis supplied)
October 2005 requesting Judge Laqui to voluntary inhibit himself
from the case. 11 In the Complaint-Affidavit it filed with this Court,
complainant vehemently denied the allegation of antedating. 15 As
On 11 November 2005, respondents filed with the RTC a proof that the Petition for Review was personally filed with the DOJ
pleading entitled "A Vehement Opposition to the Motion for on 10 October 2005, complainant attached to its Complaint-Affidavit
Inhibition" 12 (Vehement Opposition) to contradict complainant's a copy of the Petition bearing the DOJ stamp. 16
motion. The following statements, which have
become the subject of the instant disbarment complaint, were In their Comment dated 4 May 2006, 17 respondents
contained in that pleading: alleged that the filing of the disbarment complaint against them was
a mere harassment tactic. As proof, they cited the non-
A Vehement Opposition inclusion of another signatory to the Vehement Opposition, Public
to the Prosecutor Nadine Jaban-Fama, as a respondent
Motion for Inhibition in the Complaint. 18 They also contended that the statements they
COMES NOW, private complainant, had made in their pleadings were covered
by and through the undersigned counsel, unto by the doctrine of privileged communication. 19
this Honorable Court respectfully states:
 In a Resolution dated 7 August 2006, the Court referred for the derogatory statements made against them in the pleadings
this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for he submitted during the IBP investigation.
investigation, report and recommendation. 20
Complainant filed a Comment/Opposition 25 to
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP respondents' Motion for Reconsideration on 8 January 2009.
In his Report and Recommendation dated 7 July On 22 March 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued
2008, 21 Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 granting respondent's Motion for
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility: Reconsideration and recommending the dismissal of the instant
case on the basis of complainant's failure to implead an
We agree with the complainant indispensable party:
that the accusation that they
antedated the mailing of the DOJ petition is RESOLVED to GRANT Respondent's Motion for
violative of the Code of Professional Reconsideration, considering that complainant's
Responsibility and the duty of all lawyers to non-joinder of an indispensable party
observe civility and propriety in their pleadings. makes the presumption that Respondents acted
It was somewhat irresponsible according to regulations and in good faith
for the respondents to make such an in the performance of their official duties. Thus,
accusation on the basis of pure speculation. Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391 dated August 14,
considering that they had no proof to support 2008 is hereby SET ASIDE.
their accusation and did not even make any Accordingly, the case against Respondents is
attempt to verify from the DOJ the date hereby DISMISSED with stern Warning to be
and the manner by which the said petition was more circumspect.
filed. Moreover, as held in Asa, we will have to
disagree with the respondents' argument on To date, this Court has not received any petition from
privileged communication, the use of offensive complainant or any other interested party questioning Resolution No.
language in pleadings filed XXI-2014-146 of the IBP Board of Governors. However, pursuant to
in the course of judicial proceedings, Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court as amended by Bar
constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to Matter No. 1645, 26 we must ultimately decide disciplinary
disciplinary action. proceedings against members of the bar,
regardless of the acts of the complainant. 27 This rule is consistent
xxx xxx xxx with our obligation to preserve the purity of the legal profession and
ensure the proper and honest administration of justice. 28 In
In Asa, the Supreme Court found accordance with this duty, we now pass
Atty. Ginger Anne Castillo upon the recommendation of the IBP.
guilty of breach of Canon 8 of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and admonished OUR RULING
her to refrain from using offensive and
improper language in her pleadings. After a judicious examination of the records of this
Considering that the respondents' accusation case, the Court resolves to SET ASIDE Resolution No. XXI-2014-
that the complainant and its lawyers 146 of the IBP Board of Governors. Not only are the grounds cited
antedated the mailing of Bro. Eliseo Soriano's as bases for the dismissal of the complaint inapplicable to
DOJ Petition is somewhat more serious than disbarment proceedings. We are also convinced that there is
an allegation of wanting additional attorney's sufficient justification to discipline respondents for
fees for opening doors and serving coffee, we violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
believe that the penalty of reprimand would be Non-joinder of a party is not a ground
proper in this case. to dismiss a disciplinary proceeding.
Wherefore, premises considered, it In Resolution No. XXI-2014-146, the IBP
is respectfully recommended that respondent Board of Governors dismissed the instant case
Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta be because of complainant's purported failure to implead an
reprimanded for using improper language in indispensable party. Although this ground for dismissal was not
their pleadings with a warning that a explained at length in its resolution, the IBP Board of Governors
repetition of the same will be dealt with more appeared to have given credence to the argument proffered by
severely. 22 respondents. They had argued that the public prosecutor was an
On 14 August 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued indispensable party to the proceeding, and that her non-joinder was
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391, which adopted and approved a ground for the dismissal of the case. That ruling is patently
Commissioner Limpingco's Report and Recommendation: erroneous.

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is In previous cases, the Court has explained that

hereby ADOPTED and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. 29 These
APPROVED the Report and proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely criminal, 30 but are
Recommendation of the Investigating rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, officers. 31 Technical rules of procedure are not strictly
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex applied, 32 but are construed in a manner that allows us to
"A"; and, finding the recommendation fully determine whether lawyers are still fit to fulfill the duties and
supported by the evidence on record exercise the privileges of their office. 33
and the applicable laws and rules, and for We cannot countenance the dismissal of the case against
using improper language in their pleadings respondents merely because the public prosecutor has not been
Atty. Restituto Lazaro and Atty. Rodel Morta joined as a party. We emphasize that in disbarment
are REPRIMANDED with a Warning that a proceedings, the Court merely calls upon members of the bar to
repetition of the same will be dealt with more account for their actuations as
severely. 23 officers of the Court. 34 Consequently, only the lawyer who
On 14 November 2008, respondents filed a Motion for is the subject of the case is indispensable. No other party, not even
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 14 August 2008. They a complainant, is needed. 35
argued that the Complaint against them should have been In this case, respondents are only called upon to account
dismissed on the following grounds: (a) complainant's failure to for their own conduct. Specifically, their pleadings
implead the public prosecutor, who must be considered an contain the accusation that complainant antedated the filing of a
indispensable party to the case, since the pleading in question petition before the DOJ. The fact that Public Prosecutor Jaban-Fama
could not have been filed without her conformity; (b) as the subject also signified her conformity to the pleadings containing these
pleadings had been signed by the public prosecutor, their contents statements is irrelevant to the issue of whether respondents' conduct
enjoyed the presumption of regularity and legality, upon which warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
respondents were entitled to rely; (c) respondents relied in good
faith on the review, supervision and direction of the public Respondents cannot utilize the
prosecutor in the filing of the pleading in question; and presumption of regularity accorded
(d) the statements in the pleading were covered to acts of the public prosecutor as a
by the doctrine of privileged communication. 24 Respondents also defense for their own misconduct.
contended that Atty. Chavez should be disciplined
 Respondents cannot excuse their conduct by We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and
invoking the presumption of regularity accorded to official abusive language does not merit the ultimate
acts of the public prosecutor. It must be emphasized that the act in penalty of disbarment. 45 Nonetheless, respondents should be
question, i.e., the preparation of the pleadings disciplined for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and
subject of the Complaint, was performed by respondents and not sternly warned that the Court will deal with future similar conduct
by the public prosecutor. Hence, any impropriety more severely. 46
in the contents of or the language used in these pleadings
originated from respondents. The mere fact that the public A final note. We find it necessary to remind the IBP of its
prosecutor signed the pleadings after they were prepared could not duty to judiciously investigate and evaluate each and every
have cured any impropriety contained therein. The presumption disciplinary action referred to it by this Court. In making its
that the public prosecutor performed her duties regularly and in recommendations, the IBP should bear in
accordance with law cannot shield respondents from liability for mind the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against
their own conduct. members of the bar — to maintain the integrity of the legal
profession for the sake of public interest. Needless to
The claim of respondents that they relied in good faith state, the Court will not look with favor upon a recommendation
on the approval of the public prosecutor is likewise untenable. As based entirely on technical and procedural grounds.
lawyers, they have a personal obligation to observe the Code of 
Professional Responsibility. This obligation includes the duty to WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards dated 22 March 2014 issued by the IBP Board of Governors is
their professional colleagues, including opposing counsel. hereby SET ASIDE. Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are
Respondents cannot disregard this solemn duty solely hereby ADMONISHED to use only respectful and temperate
on the basis of the signature of a public prosecutor and later seek language in the preparation of pleadings and to be more
to absolve themselves from liability by pleading good faith. circumspect in dealing with their professional colleagues. They are
likewise STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or
Respondents violated Canons 8 and similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. SO ORDERED.

There being no cause for the dismissal of the instant Leonardo-de Castro, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ.,

case, the Court now proceeds to determine whether respondents concur.
have indeed violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Bersamin, * J., is on official leave.
We note that the essential allegations of the Complaint-
||| (Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Lazaro, A.C. No. 7045
Affidavit have already been admitted by respondents.
(Resolution), [September 5, 2016], 794 PHIL 308-322)
In the Comment 36 they submitted to this Court, they even
reproduced the pertinent portions 37 of their pleadings that
contained the allegations of antedating. Accordingly, the only
question left for us to resolve is whether their conduct
violates the ethical code of the profession.
After a thorough evaluation of the pleadings filed
by the parties and the Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Limpingco, the Court finds
respondents guilty of violating Canons 8 38 and 10 39 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. 40 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. 41 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.
That the statements conveyed the perception by
respondents of the events that transpired during the scheduled
arraignment and their "truthful belief regarding a perceived
irregularity" in the filing of the Petition is not an excuse. As this
Court emphasized in Re: Supreme Court Resolution Dated 28
April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 & 145822:
The Court cannot countenance the ease with
which lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening
their cause in a motion for inhibition, make
grave and unfounded accusations of unethical
conduct or even wrongdoing against other
members of the legal profession. It
is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain
from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justness of the cause with
which they are charged. 42
Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise
untenable. Indulging in offensive personalities
in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional
conduct subject to disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof
is privileged. 43 While lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and
criminal liability for privileged statements made in their pleadings,
they remain subject to this Court's supervisory and disciplinary
powers for lapses in the observance of their duty as
members of the legal profession. 44
 FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016.]
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-
HENARES, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO
"ARGEE" C. GUEVARRA, respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J p:
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.
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:
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, bistado ko na kung
sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag
nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa isang
ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9
at 10:31 pm) 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
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:
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 [RMGI'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] hand :(" (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 took 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 12:17am) 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 demand letter 35 dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the
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
Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account,
posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with criminal
conviction, without factual basis and without proof, 25 as follows:
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 delos
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
Complainant likewise averred that some of respondent's
Facebook posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of
women, 29 to wit:
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 na prends 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? balato 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
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
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
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
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 Recommendation 47 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 stern 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 19.01 51 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 Resolution 53 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 Resolution 56 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.
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.
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. . . . 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:
(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
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:
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.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and
therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism 72 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. AcICHD
"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 stern 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. TAIaHE
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.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro,
Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
||| (Belo-Henares V. Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394, [December 1, 2016],
801 PHIL 570-589)
 FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12137. July 9, 2018.]
PHENINAH * D.F. WASHINGTON, complainant,  his use of intemperate language in his pleadings.
vs. ATTY. SAMUEL D. DICEN, respondent.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J p:
This administrative case is rooted on a Letter-
Complaint 1 dated September 21, 2015 filed
by Pheninah D.F. Washington (complainant) against respondent
Atty. Samuel D. Dicen (Atty. Dicen) for "unethical practice of law,
[and] abuse of [the] privilege and power vested upon him as a
lawyer." 2
The Antecedent Facts
In her Letter-Complaint, complainant alleged that on
August 14, 2015, she went to her house in Dumaguete City, then
occupied by the family of her niece, Roselyn R Toralde (Roselyn),
in order to perform necessary repairs thereon after discovering that
said house was in a dilapidated state and badly infested by
termites. 3 The repairs, however, did not push through as planned
because the police arrived in the premises and arrested
complainant and her companions. 4 Complainant claimed that it
was Atty. Dicen, Roselyn's uncle and her first cousin, who had
ordered her to be arrested for trespassing even though she was the
lawful owner of the property in question. 5
In his defense, Atty. Dicen strongly denied that he had
given the police officers an order to arrest complainant, as he had
no power or authority to do so. 6 He argued that complainant was
arrested after she was caught in flagrante delicto committing acts
of coercion by removing the G.I. sheet roofing of Roselyn's house
to force the latter and her family to move out. 7
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation 8 dated January 20,
2017, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Jose Alfonso M.
Gomos, found no merit in the allegations of unethical practice of
law against Atty. Dicen. Nevertheless, it recommended that
Atty. Dicen be admonished "to be gracious, courteous, dignified,
civil and temperate (even if forceful) in his language." 9
The IBP pointed to: (a) Atty. Dicen's
Manifestation 10 dated October 19, 2016 where he described
complainant's actions as having "no sane purpose," 11 and meant
only to "satisfy her crazy quest for revenge," 12 and even
characterized complainant as a "lunatic;" 13 and (b) Atty. Dicen's
Position Paper 14 dated November 28, 2016 where he stated:
It is the observation of the
respondent that complainant is no longer
thinking on her own but has become fixated on
her illicit and immoral, if not adulterous
relationship with her ex-husband, Martin Vince,
(while current husband is in the [United States]
reportedly recuperating from a surgery), a
foreigner who by the latter's manipulation
caused her to be estranged from the entire
Flores-Dicen clan. 15
The IBP thus concluded that Atty. Dicen had failed to
adhere to the duty imposed upon lawyers not to use language
"which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." 16 It noted that
Atty. Dicen's use of offensive language "and his resort to gossip to
prove a point, fell short of the gracious, gentlemanly, courteous,
dignified, civil and temperate (even if forceful) language required of
him as a lawyer." 17
The IBP Board of Governors, in, its Resolution No. XXII-
2017-1185 18 dated June 17, 2017, resolved to adopt and approve
the January 20, 2017 Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD
to admonish Atty. Dicen.
The Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether
Atty. Dicen should be held administratively liable for violating Rule
8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for
The Court's Ruling
The Court has examined the records of this case and
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." 19
Canon 8 of the CPR, in particular, instructs that a lawyer's
arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and
his opposing counsel, and must be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentleman to another. 20 "The language
vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive." 21
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
A thorough review of the records clearly shows that
Atty. Dicen had resorted to the use of derogatory language in his
pleadings filed before the IBP in order to rebut the allegations hurled
against him.
For instance, in his Manifestation 22 dated October 19,
2016, Atty. Dicen referred to complainant as a "lunatic" who was on
a "crazy quest for revenge" against him, viz.:
That evidently, if this affidavit has also
been filed with this Honorable Commission, the
purpose can only be to misle[a]d and muddle its
findings of facts; otherwise, then it has no sane
purpose except to persecute respondent and
satisfy her crazy quest for revenge against
respondent who she wants to answer for her
arrest and detention when she was caught by
police officers in the act of demolishing the
house of her niece, Roselyn Toralde;
That these puzzling moves of the
complainant, i.e., demolishing (against the
advice of her counsel) the house of her niece to
evict her despite the pendency of an unlawful
detainer case and the filing of an administrative
case before [the] IBP x x x because she was
unlawfully arrested and detained by the police
for her attempt at demolishing a house appear
to be lunatic; x x x 23 (Emphasis supplied)
In the same pleading, Atty. Dicen also called complainant
"a puppet and a milking cow" of a certain Martin, who he suggested
was complainant's lover in the Philippines while her husband was in
the United States:
That[,] in fact[,] this [sic] puzzling acts
of complainant finds some rationality if eyes are
set beyond the complainant and focus[ed] on
the man that has made her a puppet and a
milking cow.
This man is a certain Martin, a
foreigner, [living] with her in her "home alone"
while her husband is in the U.S. reportedly
recuperating from some surgery. Since then[,]
complainant has become aggressive in pursuing
her vendetta against all her siblings and
relatives for imagined ungrateful acts, claiming
that their lives have become better because of
her, and therefore should kowtow to her every
whims and caprices. 24
 To make matters worse, Atty. Dicen continued his
personal tirades against complainant in his Position Paper 25 dated
November 28, 2016 where he stated that:
It is the observation of the
respondent that complainant is no longer
thinking on her own but has become fixated
on her illicit and immoral, if not
adulterous[,] relationship with her ex-
husband, Martin Vince, (while current husband
is in the [United States] reportedly recuperating
from a surgery), a foreigner who[,] by the
latter's manipulation[,] caused her to be
estranged from the entire Flores-Dicen Clan.
Blinded by manipulative lover[,]
Martin[,] she had become so hostile and
unreasonable, if not unchristian[,] to her
relatives who are members of the Seventh-Day
Adventist Church. x x x 26 (Emphasis
supplied)
The totality of these circumstances leads the Court to
inevitably conclude that Atty. Dicen violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of
the CPR for his use of language that not only maligned
complainant's character, but also imputed a crime against
her, i.e., that she was committing adultery against her husband
who was, at the time, living in the United States.
Indeed, Atty. Dicen could have simply stated the ultimate
facts relative to complainant's allegations against him, explained
his participation (or the lack of it) in the latter's arrest and detention,
and refrained from resorting to name-calling and personal attacks
in order to get his point across. After all, "[t]hough 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." 27
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Samuel D. Dicen is
found GUILTY of violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to refrain
from using language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper in his pleadings, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, ** Jardeleza,
Tijam and Gesmundo, *** JJ., concur.
 
||| (Washington v. Dicen, A.C. No. 12137 (Resolution), [July 9, 2018])
 SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10949. August 14, 2019.]
[Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3915]
CARMELITA CANETE, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ARTEMIO PUTI, respondent.
DECISION
CAGUIOA, ** J p:
Before the Court is an administrative
complaint 1 (complaint) filed by Carmelita Canete (Canete) against
Atty. Artemio Puti (Atty. Puti) with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In her complaint, Canete claimed that her husband was a
victim in a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with double
murder filed against Atty. Puti's client. Canete averred that
Atty. Puti had, in numerous occasions, appeared in court while he
was intoxicated and made discourteous and inappropriate remarks
against the public and private prosecutors as well as the judge. 2
Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her private
counsel, Atty. Arturo Tan (Atty. Tan), by calling him "bakla" in open
court during the hearing on May 9, 2013:
ATTY. MALABANAN:
   Objection, [Y]our Honor. Before the witness is
confronted with this question, may I
ask counsel, Atty. Puti, if that copy. . .
Because that is vital and substantial
and this was previously marked as our
exhibit in our offer of evidence, this
June 26. My point is, where did
Atty. Puti get that document. That it is
stated that it appears it was on June
26, 2008, appearing on [TSN] 3 May
13, 2009, when the prosecution and
this representation have the same
copies, your Honor. I think it is more
right and that document is wrong [or]
falsified.
ATTY. TAN:
   May we ask the counsel to confront the
witness with a correct document. What
we have is the duplicate original, your
Honor. Atty. Puti is referring to a
[photocopy].
ATTY. PUTI:
   All of them, [Y]our Honor, please, are my
enemies?
ATTY. TAN:
   No, [Y]our Honor. We [are] just [putting]
everything in the proper context.
ATTY. PUTI
   "Ako muna, [hijo]. Ikaw naman para kang
bakla." 4 (Emphasis supplied)
   Also, during the February 14, 2013 hearing,
Atty. Puti again became disrespectful towards Atty. Tan:
   We take exception to that allegation.
ATTY. PUTI:
   Atty. Tan, you can react after my argument. My
goodness!
ATTY. TAN:
   Making an allegation is an exception, [Y]our
Honor.
ATTY. PUTI:
   That is unethical. You behave like a
lawyer. 5 (Emphasis supplied).
Likewise, Atty. Puti also made inappropriate remarks
against the public prosecutor, as seen in the following exchanges
during the hearing on March 14, 2013:
ATTY. TAN:
   Objection, [Y]our Honor. Already answered,
[Y]our Honor.
ATTY. PUTI:
   No Answer! Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor?
Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo.
PROS. DELOS SANTOS:
   Your Honor, as lead counsel for the public and
for the government, we would like the
Court to please advise counsel,
Atty. Puti, to refrain from making
personal statements as it will heighten
the tension and stress of everybody here
inside the courtroom. We beg. I just
heard him "Malaki siguro ang bayad sa
inyo." May we put that on record. That is
very unprofessional. He used to be a
public prosecutor! 6 (Emphasis supplied)
In addition, Canete also alleged that during the May 9,
2013 hearing, Atty. Puti uttered the words "to the handsome public
prosecutor" with seething sarcasm. 7
Lastly, Canete averred that during the May 22, 2013
hearing, Atty. Puti repeatedly bullied and threatened the judge in
open court:
ATTY. PUTI:
   I object.
COURT:
   [Okay], proceed.
ATTY. PUTI:
   I object. Strongly object, [Y]our Honor.
COURT:
   Let him proceed.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PUTI:
   I would like to make of record that I have a
continuous objection.
COURT:
   [Okay]! You have a continuing objection but I
will allow him.
ATTY. TAN:
   Thank you, [Y]our Honor.

ATTY. TAN: ATTY. PUTI:

   Your Honor, we take exception to that    That is an abuse of discretion on your part,
statement. [Y]our Honor.

ATTY. PUTI: COURT:

   I am not yet through.    But let him proceed.

ATTY. TAN: ATTY. PUTI:

    [Okay]!
COURT:
   Let him proceed. If you do not like my ruling,
you can file a certiorari, if you want.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PUTI:
   Your Honor, this time, I am [half] objecting.
Because there was no testimony from
this witness. This is why I was insisting
a while ago that the witness be
confronted with such testimony.
Otherwise, if the Court will allow the
cross-examiner to ask that question, I
will withdraw from appearing in this
case because I would not like to
participate in this kind of trial, partial
trial. This is an abuse of discretion.
ATTY. TAN:
   Well, [Y]our Honor, first, is Atty. Puti talking
about the statement made by this
witness during his direct testimony as
witness for Mariano de Leon? We will
not have that because the transcript [is]
not ready. It is impossible for me to
confront him with the transcript of the
last hearing. It is not here with us.
ATTY. PUTI:
   That is the reason why the Prosecutor is
guessing, making false question.
Because the question is improper as
there was no testimony to that effect. If
he will not be confront[ed] with such
testimony and then the Court will allow
that, please, I beg of this [court], I will
withdraw. I will walk out.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PUTI:
   Why does the Honorable Judge [allow] the
private prosecutor to make some kind
of arguments when he is allowed to
answer for an objection on legal
ground?
   Why [does] the Honorable Court [allow] him to
argue? To [speak]?
COURT:
   Because you are also arguing. You were the
first one arguing.
ATTY. PUTI:
   I do not want to stipulate but.
COURT:
   You want to control the proceedings?
ATTY. PUTI:
   I don't want to think the Honorable Court is
bias[ed].
COURT:
   For you to argue and for him not to argue?
ATTY. PUTI:
   I am going to think the Honorable Court is
bias[ed]. 8 (Emphasis supplied)
For his part, Atty. Puti prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint against him. 9 He denied ever appearing intoxicated in
court. 10 He also claimed that it was Atty. Tan who provoked him
when the latter made threats against him. 11 According to him, it
was his duty to call out the judge for being biased and that he was
only discharging his duties to his client by representing him with
zeal. 12
A mandatory conference was held and both parties were
subsequently ordered to submit their position papers.
Findings of the IBP
The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD issued a
Report and Recommendation 13 finding Atty. Puti liable for
misconduct for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension for
two (2) years from the practice of law. 14 The Investigating
Commissioner found that Atty. Puti failed to conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional
colleagues. 15 Further, his act of imputing bias on the judge was
without basis and uncalled for. 16 Furthermore, his act of appearing
at hearings while intoxicated was in utter disrespect to the court.
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-785, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the
recommendation to be fully supported by the
evidence on record and applicable laws, and for
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 8, Rule
10.01, 10.03, Canon 10 and Canon 11 of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty.
Artemio Puti is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months. 17
Based on the records, 18 Atty. Puti did not file a motion for
reconsideration despite receipt of the IBP Resolution.
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP, with
modifications.
Canete filed the instant complaint against Atty. Puti for: 1)
appearing in the hearings while drunk; 2) provoking and insulting the
prosecutors; and 3) disrespecting the court. These grounds shall be
discussed in seriatim.
On the allegation that Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated in
court on numerous occasions, Canete claimed that these were
witnessed by several court personnel, his co-counsels, and opposing
counsels. 19 Atty. Puti denied such claim and argued that there is no
evidence on record that he appeared in court while
intoxicated. 20 The Court agrees with Atty. Puti. It was not
sufficiently proven that Atty. Puti ever appeared at a court hearing
while he was intoxicated — despite Canete's claim that the same
was witnessed by several persons. Thus, Atty. Puti cannot be held
liable on this ground.
Regarding the second ground, the TSN of the hearings
held at the trial court plainly show that Atty. Puti employed
impertinent and discourteous language towards the opposing
counsels.
To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in a
condescending manner. To be sure, the term "bakla" (gay) itself is
not derogatory. It is used to describe a male person who is attracted
to the same sex. Thus, the term in itself is not a source of offense as
it is merely descriptive. However, when "bakla" is used in a
pejorative and deprecating manner, then it becomes derogatory.
Such offensive language finds no place in the courtroom or in any
other place for that matter. Atty. Puti ought to be aware that using
the term "bakla" in a derogatory way is no longer acceptable — as it
should have been in the first place. Verily, in Sy v. Fineza, 21 the
Court ruled that the respondent judge's act of ruling that a witness
should not be given any credence because he is a "bakla" was most
unbecoming of a judge. 22
As against the public prosecutors, Atty. Puti made the
following statement: "Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro
bayad sa inyo." 23 Such remark was clearly unprofessional,
especially since Atty. Puti used to be a public prosecutor. 24 By
nonchalantly accusing the prosecutors of having been bribed or
otherwise acting for a valuable consideration, Atty. Puti overstepped
the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor which he owes to the
opposing counsels.
For his statements against the private and public
prosecutors, Atty. Puti violated the following provisions under the 
Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
As regards the final ground, the TSN of the May 22, 2013
hearing shows that Atty. Puti made several remarks against the
judge. Specifically, Atty. Puti stated in open court that the judge
was abusing his discretion and implied that the judge was partial
and biased. Moreover, Atty. Puti threatened the judge that he
would withdraw from the case and walk out if his request was not
granted. Again, such statements were improper.
While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to
criticize the acts of courts and judges, the same must be made
respectfully and through legitimate channels. In this case,
Atty. Puti violated the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
As a defense, Atty. Puti claimed that he was merely
doing his duty to call out the judge for being biased. He maintained
that he was only discharging his duties to his client by representing
him with zeal. Such contention deserves scant consideration.
While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause
is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or
enthusiasm is disfavored. 25
On the penalty to be imposed, the Court disagrees with
the IBP's recommendation that Atty. Puti be suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months. While Atty. Puti is found to have
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspension from
the practice of law is not a commensurate penalty. The Court has
consistently held that disbarment and suspension of an attorney
are the most severe forms of disciplinary action, which should be
imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly
proven serious administrative charges. 26
Thus, while Atty. Puti is guilty of using inappropriate
language against the opposing counsels and the judge, such
transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit his
suspension since his misconduct is considered as simple rather
than grave.
In Saberon v. Lorong, 27 the Court meted the penalty
of fine of P2,000.00 for a lawyer's use of intemperate language for
referring to a party's pleadings as "a series of blackmail suits."
In Bacatan v. Dadula, 28 the Court fined a lawyer for P2,000.00 for
making unfounded accusations of partiality, bias, and corruption
against the prosecutor. More recently, in Quilendrino v.
Icasiano, 29 a lawyer was reprimanded for violating Canon 8, Rule
8.01, Canon 11, and Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
As applied to this case, the Court finds it best to temper
the penalty for Atty. Puti's infraction. The Court also takes into
consideration that this is the first administrative case against
Atty. Puti in his more than three decades in the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Artemio Puti GUILTY of
violating Canons 8 and 11 and Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Court REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Puti's
personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier and Zalameda, JJ.,
concur.
Carpio, * J., is on official leave.
 
||| (Canete v. Puti, A.C. No. 10949, [August 14, 2019])