A.C. No.

10628, July 01, 2015

MAXIMINO NOBLE III, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES, Respondent.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

Maximino Noble (Maximino for brevity) filed for a complaint of disbarment against
Atty. Orlando Ailes (Orlando). Maximino alleged that Orlando had instituted a complaint for
damages against his client, Marcelo Ailes, Orlando’s brother.
He claimed that at the time of the filing of the complaint by Atty. Orlando, his IBP O.R.
number should have (1) reflected payment of his annual dues for the current year, and that he
should have finished his third Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance, not
just the second.
The following year, Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter had filed a separate
case for grave threats and estafa against Orlando. He also discovered that Orlando has been
maligning him, claiming that he is incompetent and has been charging exorbitant fees. (2)
Orlando regarded Maximo thru a text messages, as “polpol” and had uttered degrading and
insulting words against him. Further, based on records, he prepared a Notice to Terminate
Services of Counsel against Maximino.
Orlando denied the charges and claimed that his late submission of the 3 rd MCLE
compliance is not a ground for disbarment, and the Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel was
upon the request of Marcelo.
Meanwhile, the grave threats and estafa instituted against Orlando was lowered to unjust
vexation, and after a plea of guilt, Orlando was convicted of that crime.
The complaint for disbarment on the following grounds, was filed in the IBP were it was
later dismissed.

ISSUE:

WON the IBP is correct in dismissing the case (1) for the use of an offensive and
insulting language and (2) his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance.
HELD:

The Court ruled that the petition is partly meritorious.

Anent to the first ground, it was stated that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed
on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is a special
privilege burdened with conditions before the legal profession, the courts, their clients and
the society such that a lawyer has the duty to uphold integrity and promote the public's
faith in the profession.
Consequently, a lawyer must at all times, whether in public or private life, act in a
manner beyond reproach especially when dealing with fellow lawyers. 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 insulting language to describe the opposing
counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as
casual and private communications by two brothers. However to the Court, the gist of the
messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign and annoy
Maximino, violating Canons 7.03 and 8.
With regard to the second ground, Orlando's alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the
Court agrees with the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE
compliance in the complaint for damages he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a
ground for disbarment.
Hence, Orlando was not disbarred but considered strictly warned for the violations of the
canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

FOOTNOTES:

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.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS 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.

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.