PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |1
[A.C. No. 5148. July 1, 2003.]
Atty. RAMON P. REYES, Complainant, v. Atty.
VICTORIANO T. CHIONG, JR., Respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy,
dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility of
their clients should not affect their conduct and
rapport with each other as professionals and
members of the bar.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
The Case
Before us is a Sworn Complaint 1 filed by Atty.
Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant
of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty.
Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his lawyer’s
oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline resolved to suspend him as follows:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his
oath which binds him in the obligation that he will
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same. In addition, Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was
apparent that there was no legal ground to do so,
respondent violated his oath of office as well as the
above-quoted Canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years." 2
The Facts
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime
in January 1998, his services were engaged by one
Zonggi Xu, 3 a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business
venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a
Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products
factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan,
another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga
City. Eventually, the former discovered that the
latter had not established a fishball factory. When
Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile,
making it necessary for the former to seek legal
assistance.
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint
for estafa against Pan, who was represented
by Respondent. The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-
51990, was assigned to Assistant Manila City
Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a
subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary
investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998. The
latter neither appeared on the two scheduled
hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence,
Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint 4 for
estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila. 5 On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC
issued a Warrant of Arrest 6 against Pan.
Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to
Quash the Warrant of Arrest. 7 He also filed with
the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the
collection of a sum of money and damages as well
as for the .dissolution of a business venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
When confronted by complainant, respondent
explained that it was Pan who had decided to
institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes.
Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client
to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for
the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two
lawyers failed to reach a settlement.
In his Comment 8 dated January 27, 2000,
respondent argued that he had shown no disrespect
in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil
Case No. 4884. He claimed that there was no basis
to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it
had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He
alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as
an additional defendant because of the irregularities
the latter had committed in conducting the criminal
investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had
resolved to file the estafa case despite the pendency
of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit
Counter-Affidavits and Evidence, 9 of the appeal 10
to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to
Defer/Suspend Proceedings. 11
On the other hand, complainant was impleaded,
because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in
filing the estafa case, which the former knew fully
well was baseless. According to respondent, the
irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in
the criminal investigation and complainant’s
connivance therein were discovered only after the
institution of the collection suit.
The Third Division of this Court referred the case to
the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. 12 Thereafter, the Board of
Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002
Resolution. 13
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In her Report and Recommendation, 14
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the
case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and
report, averred that complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884
on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for
estafa they had filed against respondent’s client. In
his Comment, respondent himself claimed that "the
reason . . . was . . . the irregularities of the criminal
investigation/connivance and consequent
damages." cralaw virtua1aw library
Commissioner San Juan maintained that the
collection suit with damages had been filed
purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa
case, in which respondent’s client was the
defendant. There was no need to implead
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had
never participated in the business transactions

between Pan and Xu. Improper and highly
questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor
and complainant in the civil case instituted by
respondent on the alleged prodding of his client.
Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainants and
Prosecutor Salanga.
Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had
no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and
complainant in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing,
respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP
adopted the investigating commissioner’s
recommendation for his suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years.
This Court’s Ruling
We agree with the IBP’s recommendation.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. 15
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the
legal profession, they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that" [a]
lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel." 
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this
Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the "collection
of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an
unregistered business venture." It had originally
been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later
modified to include complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga.
The Amended and Supplemental Complaints 16
alleged the following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"27. The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro
Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused and
failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and
the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan
due process by violating his rights under the Rules
on preliminary investigations; he also falsely made
a Certification under oath that preliminary
investigation was duly conducted and plaintiff (was)
duly informed of the charges against him but did
not answer; he maliciously and . . . partially ruled
that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal
Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien
Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were
fatally defective and null and void; . . .;
"28. Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that
plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and motion
to defer for the valid grounds stated therein
deliberately refused to correct his errors and
consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an
invalid information and warrant of arrest.
"29. Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that
the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless connived
with the latter to harass and extort money from
plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal prosecution
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |2
in the manner contrary to law, morals and public
policy, resulting to the arrest of said plaintiff and
causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]" 17
We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the
Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper
remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that
the civil action was intended to gain leverage
against the estafa case. If respondent or his client
did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution,
they should have used the proper procedural and
administrative remedies. Respondent could have
gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of
Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an information
for estafa.
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available
to him if he could show that the estafa case was
filed without basis. Moreover, he could have
instituted disbarment proceedings against
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed
that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a
lawyer, respondent should have advised his client of
the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of
the civil case had no justification.
The lack of involvement of complainant and
Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction
subject of the collection suit shows that there was
no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears
that respondent took the estafa case as a personal
affront and used the civil case as a tool to return
the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions
demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim
of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the
parties according to law, not to harass them. 18
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A
great part of their comfort, as well as of their
success at the bar, depends upon their relations
with their professional brethren. Since they deal
constantly with each other, they must treat one
another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling
between clients should not influence counsels in
their conduct and demeanor toward each other.
Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and
offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract
from the dignity of the legal profession, 19 but also
constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary action.
Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law
practitioners not to "wittingly or willingly promote or
sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give
aid nor consent to the same."
cralaw virtua1aw library
Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted
in impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While
lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their
clients, their office does not permit violation of the
law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. 20 Their
rendition of improper service invites stern and just
condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the
honor of their profession and the best interests of
their clients when they render service or give advice
that meets the strictest principles of moral law. 21
The highest reward that can be bestowed on
lawyers in the esteem of their professional brethren.

This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily
created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is
born of sharp contests and thrives despite
conflicting interests. It emanates solely from
integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable
performance of professional duty. 22
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged
and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from
the practice of law, effectively immediately.
SO ORDERED. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
[A.C. NO. 6396. October 25, 2005]
ROSALIE DALLONG-
GALICINAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. VIRGIL R.
CASTRO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who
hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court. Members of
the bar decorum must at all times comfort
themselves in a manner befitting their noble
profession.
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed
with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-
Affidavit1 with supporting documents2 against
respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional
Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule
7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. 3 The charge in the
complaint is summed up as follows:
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner
and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter.
On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant's
office to inquire whether the complete records of
Civil Case No. 784, entitled  Sps. Crispino Castillano
v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin,
had already been remanded to the court of origin,
MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva
Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not
the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case
No. 784.
Complainant informed respondent that the record
had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should
first be presented to serve as basis for the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To
this respondent retorted scornfully, "Who will certify
the Court of Appeals' Decision, the Court of
Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go
to Manila to get a certified true copy?" Surprised at
this outburst, complainant replied, "Sir, it's in the
Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the
party you claim to be representing." Respondent
then replied, "Then you should have notified me of
the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and
I have been frequenting your office since then, but
you never bothered to notify me." Complainant
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |3
replied, "It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the
said requirement."
Respondent then answered, "You mean to say it is
not your duty to remand the record of the case?"
Complainant responded, "No, Sir, I mean, it's not
our duty to notify you that you have to submit a
copy of the Court of Appeals' decision." Respondent
angrily declared in Ilocano, "Kayat mo nga saw-en,
awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?"  ("You mean to say
you don't care anymore? Is that the way it is?") He
then turned and left the office, banging the door on
his way out to show his anger. The banging of the
door was so loud it was heard by the people at the
adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was
taking place.4
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the
office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at
complainant and shouted, "Ukinnan, no adda ti
unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak
ah!"  ("Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill
feelings against my client, don't turn your ire on
me!") Complainant was shocked at respondent's
words but still managed to reply, "I don't even know
your client, Sir." Respondent left the office and as
he passed by complainant's window, he again
shouted, "Ukinnam nga babai!"  ("Vulva of your
mother, you woman!")5
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the
incident, as it happened in her office of which she
was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff.
She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and
diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to
command full respect from her staff.6
The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days after the
incident, was supported by an Affidavit7 signed by
employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who
witnessed the incident. The Affidavit narrated the
same incident as witnessed by the said employees.
A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary
Evidence was filed by complainant on 25 September
2003.8
On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued
an Order9 requiring respondent to submit his answer
to the complaint. Respondent submitted
his Compliance10 dated 18 June 2003. Respondent
explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 847, entitled Sps. Federico Castillano,
et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et al.,  filed with the
RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He learned of the
finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847
before the lower court. Prior to the incident, he
went to the office of the complainant to request for
the transmittal of the records of the case to the
MCTC and the complainant reassured him of the
same.
Respondent admits having inquired about the status
of the transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003.
However, he has no explanation as to what
transpired on that day. Instead, he narrates that on
25 May 2003, twelve days after the incident, the
records had not yet been transmitted, and he
subsequently learned that these records were
returned to the court of origin.

The hearing for the administrative complaint before
the CBD was set on 25 September 2003 by the
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan.
However, on said date, only complainant appeared.
The latter also moved that the case be submitted
for resolution.11 Respondent later on filed
a Manifestation stating that the reason for his non-
appearance was because he was still recuperating
from physical injuries and that he was not mentally
fit to prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle
was rained with bullets on 19 August 2003. He also
expressed his public apology to the complainant in
the same Manifestation.12
Complainant filed a Manifestation  expressing her
desire not to appear on the next hearing date in
view of respondent's public apology, adding that
respondent personally and humbly asked for
forgiveness which she accepted.13
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be reprimanded and warned that any
other complaint for breach of his professional duties
shall be dealt with more severely.14 The IBP
submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution
adopting and approving the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.15
At the onset, it should be noted that respondent
was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784.
Had he been counsel of record, it would have been
easy for him to present the required certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He
need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified
true copy of the decision since the Court of Appeals
furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a
duplicate original or certified true copy of its
decision.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in
the case when its records were already transmitted
to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel
of record and there being no authorization from
either the parties to represent them, respondent
had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states:
Rule 8.02 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.
Through his acts of constantly checking the
transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal
functions of the counsel of record of that case. It
does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities
relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted
rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his
voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the
most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-
mannered but also unbecoming considering that he
did all these to a woman and in front of her
subordinates.
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |4
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco,16 respondent
ought to have realized that this sort of public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in
the public estimation and erode public respect for
it.17 These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule
8.01, to wit:
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law,
now shall he, whether in public or private life
behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound
to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They
must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards
each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times.18
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating
Commissioner, respondent did not categorically
deny the charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave
a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case
as well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-
Affidavit that respondent's uncharacteristic behavior
was not an isolated incident. He has supposedly
done the same to Attys. Abraham Johnny G.
Asuncion and Temmy Lambino, the latter having
filed a case against respondent pending before this
Court.19 We, however, cannot acknowledge such
allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity
of such claim. No affidavits to that effect were
submitted by either Atty. Asuncion or Atty.
Lambino.
Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be
tempered owing to the fact that respondent had
apologized to the complainant and the latter had
accepted it. This is not to say, however, that
respondent should be absolved from his actuations.
People are accountable for the consequences of the
things they say and do even if they repent
afterwards. The fact remains that things done
cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be
taken back. Hence, he should bear the
consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on
lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem
cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or
gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp
contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It
emanates solely from integrity, character, brains
and skills in the honorable performance of
professional duty.20

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is
hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND
(P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar
infraction with be dealt with more severely. Let a
copy of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant
for appropriate annotation in the record of the
respondent.
SO ORDERED.
A. C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002
ANTONIO A.
ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO
PEFIANCO, respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco
for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for
using improper and offensive language and
threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the
incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
Attorneys Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged
that on May 18, 2000, while Atty. Ramon Salvani III
was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose,
Antique, a woman approached them. Complainant
saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the
group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her
amicably as a hearing was taking place in another
room. At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano
Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and
shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying, Nga-
a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente
para mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle
that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he
will realize his mistake.)
Complainant said he was surprised at respondent
Pefiancos outburst and asked him to cool off, but
respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani.
Atty. Salvani tried to explain to respondent that it
was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of
the criminal case could be settled because she was
no longer interested in prosecuting the same.
Respondent refused to listen and instead continued
to scold Atty. Salvani and the latters client.
As head of the Office, complainant approached
respondent and asked him to take it easy and leave
Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at
first listened, but shortly after he again started
shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any
scene with respondent, complainant went inside his
office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside
prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity
in the Public Attorneys Office.
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a
hearing, but when he came back he heard
respondent Pefianco saying: Nagsiling si Atty.
Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO,
buyon nga klase ka tawo. (Atty. Alcantara said that
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |5
he would send me out of the PAO, what an idiot.)
Then, upon seeing complainant, respondent pointed
his finger at him and repeated his statement for the
other people in the office to hear. At this point,
according to complainant, he confronted respondent
Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to
leave the office if he had no business there.
Complainant said respondent resented this and
started hurling invectives at him. According to
complainant, respondent even took a menacing
stance towards him.
This caused a commotion in the office. Atty. Pepin
Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the Chief of the
Probation Office, tried to pacify respondent
Pefianco. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to
take respondent out of the office, but before they
could do so, respondent tried to attack complainant
and even shouted at him, Gago ka! (Youre stupid!)
Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off
respondents blow and complainant was not harmed.
Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty.
Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty.
Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat
and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent
Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman,
whose husband had been murdered, moved him
and prompted him to take up her defense. He said
that he resented the fact that complainant had
ordered an employee, Napoleon Labonete, to put a
sign outside prohibiting standbys from hanging
round in the Public Attorneys Office.
Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty.
Salvani concerning the womans case, complainant,
with his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to
get out of the Public Attorneys Office. He claimed
that two security guards also came, and
complainant ordered them to take respondent out of
the office. Contrary to complainants claims,
however, respondent said that it was complainant
who moved to punch him and shout at him, Gago
ka! (Youre stupid!)
Prior to the filing of the present complaint,
respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal
complaint against complainant. However, the
complaint was dismissed by the said office.
The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines found that respondent
committed the acts alleged in the complaint and
that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Committee noted that
respondent failed not only to deny the accusations
against him but also to give any explanation for his
actions. For this reason, it recommended that
respondent be reprimanded and warned that
repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
severely in the future.
We find the recommendation of the IBP Committee
on Bar Discipline to be well taken.
The evidence on record indeed shows that it was
respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in
question. The affidavits of several disinterested

persons confirm complainants allegation that
respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives
at him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay
hands on him (complainant).
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility1 admonishes lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound
to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They
must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each
other and otherwise conduct themselves without
reproach at all times.2cräläwvirtualibräry
In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in
which he had no right to do so caused the untoward
incident. He had no right to demand an explanation
from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had
not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in
fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but
the latter insisted on his view about the case.
Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the
woman whose husband had been murdered as she
was pleading for the settlement of her case because
she needed the money. Be that as it may,
respondent should realize that what he thought was
righteous did not give him the right to demand that
Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the accused
in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow.
Even when he was being pacified, respondent did
not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those
who tried to calm him down. Two of the witnesses,
Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went to
the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the
commotion, and two guards at the Hall of Justice,
who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent
from his verbal rampage. Respondent ought to have
realized that this sort of public behavior can only
bring down the legal profession in the public
estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever
moral righteousness respondent had was negated
by the way he chose to express his indignation. An
injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found
GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, considering this to
be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount
of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning
that similar action in the future will be sanctioned
more severely.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant, v. ATTYS.
LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D.
BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and
HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN
AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, Respondents.
D E C I S IO N
VITUG, J.:JVITUG
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |6
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a
violation of the Code of Professional Ethics,
specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
"A lawyer should not in any way communicate
upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he
undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should only deal with his
counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most
particularly to avoid everything that may tend
to mislead a party not represented by counsel
and he should not undertake to advise him as
to law."
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint
against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices,
namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C.
Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V.
Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some
expelled students from the AMA Computer
College ("AMACC"), in an action for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil
Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that
respondents, then counsel for the defendants,
procured and effected on separate occasions,
without his knowledge, compromise
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements")
with four of his clients in the aforementioned
civil case which, in effect, required them to
waive all kinds of claims they might have had
against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it. Complainant
averred that such an act of respondents was
unbecoming of any member of the legal
profession warranting either disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.
In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan
acknowledged that not one of his co-
respondents had taken part in the negotiation,
discussion, formulation, or execution of the
various Re-Admission Agreements complained
of and were, in fact, no longer connected at
the time with the Pangulayan and Associates
Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements, he
claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal
of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were executed
for the sole purpose of effecting the
settlement of an administrative case involving
nine students of AMACC who were expelled
therefrom upon the recommendation of the
Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students,
namely, Ian Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo,
Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon,
Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A.
Santiago, Michael Ejercito, and Cleo B.
Villareiz,, were all members of the Editorial
Board of DATALINE, who apparently had
caused to be published some objectionable
features or articles in the paper. The 3-
member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was
immediately convened, and after a series of
hearings, it found the students guilty of the
use of indecent language and unauthorized
use of the student publication funds. The body

recommended the penalty of expulsion against
the erring students.
The denial of the appeal made by the students
to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC President,
gave rise to the commencement of Civil Case
No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon
City. While the civil case was still pending,
letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were separately executed by
and/or in behalf of some of the expelled
students, to wit: Letter of Apology, dated 27
May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by
his mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of
22 June 1997 with the AMACC President; letter
of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs.
Veronica B. De Leon for her daughter Melyda
B. De Leon and Re-Admission Agreement of 09
May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of
apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven,
assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission
Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC
President; letter of apology, dated 22
September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re-
Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997 with
the AMACC President; and letter of apology,
dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito,
assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission
Agreement of 23 January 1997 with the
AMACC President.
Following the execution of the letters of
apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a
Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed
with the trial court where the civil case was
pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for
defendant AMACC. A copy of the manifestation
was furnished complainant. In his Resolution,
dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the
Quezon City Regional Trial Court thereupon
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP")
passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163, thus:
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution/Decision
as Annex 'A,' and, finding the recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules, with an
amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is
suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and
DISMISSAL of the case against the other
Respondents for they did not take part in the
negotiation of the case."
It would appear that when the individual
letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were formalized, complainant was
by then already the retained counsel for
plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent
Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact.
Although aware that the students were
represented by counsel, respondent attorney
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |7
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with
them and their parents without at the very
least communicating the matter to their
lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel
of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This
failure of respondent, whether by design or
because of oversight, is an inexcusable
violation of the canons of professional ethics
and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a
colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a
member of the Bar.
The allegation that the context of the Re-
Admission Agreements centers only on the
administrative aspect of the controversy is
belied by the Manifestation 1 which, among
other things, explicitly contained the following
stipulation; viz:
"1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the
complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
parents/guardian already executed a Re-
Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for
violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and
agreed among others to terminate all civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings which
they may have against the AMACC arising from
their previous dismissal.
"x x x......x x x......x x x
"3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an
Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
Q-97-30549 will by filed them."
The Court can only thus concur with the IBP
Investigating Commission and the IBP Board
of Governors in their findings; nevertheless,
the recommended six-month suspension
would appear to be somewhat too harsh a
penalty given the circumstances and the
explanation of respondent.
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado
C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
MONTHS effective immediately upon his
receipt of this decision. The case against the
other respondents is DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the
personal record of respondent as an attorney
and as a member of the Bar, and furnished the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
ATTY. IRENEO L. Adm. Case No. 5910
TORRES and MRS.
NATIVIDAD  
CELESTINO,

Complainants, Present :
   
  PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, and
  GARCIA, JJ.
  Promulgated:
  ' conceal documents as demonstrated by an
ATTY. JOSE September 21, 2005
CONCEPCION
JAVIER,
Respondent.
xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xx
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By complaint [1] dated November 26, 2002, Atty.
Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino
(complainants) charge Atty. Jose Concepcion
Javier (respondent) for malpractice, gross
misconduct in office as an attorney and/or
violation of the lawyer's oath.
 The charges stemmed from the
statements/remarks made by respondent in the
pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all
funds of the University of the East Faculty
Association (UEFA), as counsel for the therein
petitioners UEFA then Treasurer Rosamarie
Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President
Eleonor Javier, before the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) against herein complainants,
docketed as NCR-OD-0105-004-LRD (audit
case), [2] and from the pleadings filed by
respondent in another labor case as counsel for
the one hundred seventy six (176) faculty
members of the University of the East
complainants against herein complainant Atty.
Ireneo L. Torres, et al.,  [3] docketed as NCR-0D-
0201-0005-LRD (attorney's fees case). [4]
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of
action against respondent.
The first cause of action is based on respondent's
'Urgent Motion to Expedite with Manifestation and
Reiteration of Position (Motion to Expedite) filed
in the audit case which complainants allege
contained statements which are absolutely false,
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of
crimes of robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds,
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |8
destruction or concealment of UEFA's documents
and some other acts tending to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon their
persons. [5] Portions of the questioned motion
read:
Undersigned attorney would like to manifest '
just so it can not be said later on that he
kept mum on the matter ' that when
individual respondents-appellants realized
that an audit of Union funds was looming, it
appears that they decided to destroy or
'Incident Report Re Robbery dated May 6,
2002 (a copy just recently secured by the
undersigned), attached hereto as Annex 'A',
where the police investigator stated that 'no
forcible entry was noted by him but 'that air
condition on the respective rooms were (sic)
slightly move (sic) to mislead that suspect as
the same as their point of entry.[] The police
officers stated that 'no cash of (sic) money
were stolen but instead claimed that still
undetermined documents/important papers
were stolen by the suspects.
This brings to mind the United States case
against Andersen officials who shredded
documents related to the Enron scandal
when they thought nobody was looking. As
in the Andersen/Enron case, the individual
respondents-appellants in the instant case
knew that the law was going to come
knocking at their door, asking a lot [of]
questions about financial matters.
 
From the undersigned's standpoint, the
alleged 'robbery of 'still undetermined
documents/papers' was an inside job as
investigation has shown that there is no
evidence of forced entry. Besides, it would
be a cinch to establish a motive by individual
respondents-appellants Torres and Celestino
to destroy documents related to the audit
ordered by Regional Director Alex E. Maraan.
In any event, the undersigned thinks that
the legal process should go on. Lumang
gimmick na 'yang 'robbery ng mga
evidensya. They may try to cover up the
'looting of union funds, but there is such a
thing as secondary evidence, not to mention
the power of this Honorable Office to
issue subpoenas  even to the union's
depositary banks. [6] (Underscoring
supplied)
Complainants aver that respondent violated the
attorney's oath that he 'obey the laws' and 'do no
falsehood, the Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Rule 10.01 thereof, and Rule 138,
specifically paragraph 20 (f) of the Rules of Court
for directly pointing to them as the persons who
intentionally committed the robbery at the UEFA
office, and for citing the Andersen/Enron case
which is irrelevant, impertinent, and immaterial
to the subject of quasi-judicial inquiry. [7]
 As second cause of action, complainants allege
that in the attorney's fees case, respondent, in
his 'Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez)
Answer/Comment filed before the DOLE, used
language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and

improper, [8] inconsistent with the character of
an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. [9]
 As third/last cause of action, complainants quote
respondent's statement in the aforesaid Reply, to
wit:
 
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to
hear notaries public asking their sons, wives,
girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a
notarial office and sign for them. These
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits,
administer oaths and certify documents. x x
x, [10]
 
and allege that the statement is demeaning to the
integrity of the legal profession, 'uncalled for and
deserve[s] censure, [as] the same might shrink
the degree of confidence and trust reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial
document. [11]
By his Comment, respondent candidly professes
that he was angry [12] while he was preparing his
'Motion to Expedite in the audit case, it having
come to his knowledge that the UEFA office had
been burglarized and complainant Atty. Torres
had been spreading reports and rumors
implicating his clients including his wife to the
burglary. [13]
Respondent stresses that he felt that it was his
duty to inform the BLR of the loss of the vital
documents so that the resolution of the pending
motion for reconsideration filed by complainants
would be expedited; [14] and that the information
regarding the burglary and his use of
the Andersen/Enron case as a figure of speech
were relevant in drawing a link between the
burglary and the audit ' the burglary having
rendered the complete implementation of the
audit unattainable. [15]
With respect to the attorney's fees case,
respondent claims that Atty. Torres did not in his
Answer confront the issues thereof but instead
'mock[ed] his wife and fabricat[ed] and
distort[ed] realities' [16] by including malicious,
libelous and impertinent statements and
accusations against his wife which exasperated
him. [17] A portion of Atty. Torres' Answer in the
attorney's fees case reads:
x x x in her incumbency as President of the
UEFA for 12 years (1987-1999) she got only
about P2.00/hr CBA increase which took
effect only [in] 1994, with no other
substantial improvements of the teacher's
benefits, and yet she spent for more than
half a million negotiation expenses from the
UEFA's funds. Her 1994-1999 CBA was only
a carbon copy of her old 1989-1994 CBA
PALE (Cases for Canon 8) |9
with no substantial improvements, with
uncertain amount of her expenses, because
she removed/concealed all the financial
records of the UEFA during her term. . . I
and the other lawyers/teachers denounced
her unlawful deduction of 10% attorney's
fees from the small backwages received by
the teachers on April 28, 1993 although
there was actually no lawyer who worked for
itand there was no Board nor General
Membership Assembly Resolutions passedthe
assembly [Nov. 24, 2001] was apparently
irked to Mrs. Eleanor Javier when she was
booed while talking on the floor, like a
confused gabble (sic) [18]
 
 
Not wanting to allow his wife to be maligned by
Atty. Torres, respondent admits having responded
with a counter-attack in his 'Reply to Respondents
(Torres and Marquez)
Answer/Comment [19] wherein he stated:
 
What kind of a lawyer is this Atty. Torres?
The undersigned feels that Atty. Torres just
cannot kick the habit of injecting immaterial,
irrelevant, and impertinent matters in his
pleadings. More than that, he lies through
his teeth. The undersigned thinks that if he
has any common sense at all he should shut
up about his accusation  that Prof. Javier
spent more than half a million pesos for
negotiation expensesshe obtained only P2-
increase in union members salary, etc.
because of the pendency of the damage suit
against him on this score. He easily forgets
the sad chapter of his life as a practitioner
when he lost out to Prof. Javier in the
petition for audit (Case No. NCR-OD-M-9401-
004) which he filed to gain 'pogi points prior
to the UEFA election in 1994. [20]
 
xxx
To repeat, if respondent Atty. Torres has any
common sense at all, he should stop making
irrelevant, libelous and impertinent
allegations in his pleadings. This means
changing his 'standard tactic of skirting the
main issues by injecting a web or a maze of
sham, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous
matters. [21] (Underscoring supplied)
 
 
Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring
to the BLR's attention that Atty. Torres had the
habit of hurling baseless accusations against his
wife to embarrass her, including one for unjust
vexation and another for collection and damages
both of which were dismissed after trial on the
merits, thus prompting him to state that 'these
dismissed cases indubitably indicate Atty. Torres'
pattern of mental dishonesty. [22]
Respondent further claims that in his Answer in
the same attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres
accused his client, Prof. Maguigad, of forging the
signature of a notary public and of 'deliberately
us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax
Certificate in order to justify the dismissal of the

case against him (Atty. Torres); [23] and that
Atty. Torres continued harassing his clients
including his wife by filing baseless complaints for
falsification of public document. [24] Hence, in
defense of his clients, the following statements in
his Reply:
 
Respondent further concluded that lead
petitioner Prof. Maguigad 'falsified the said
petition by causing it to appear that he
participated in the falsification when he did
not in truth and in fact participate
thereat . . . obviously oblivious of the
obvious that it is highly improbable for Prof.
Maguigad to have forged the signature of the
notary public. If he intended to forge it, what
was the big idea of doing so? To save Fifty
Pesos (P50.00) for notarial fee? Needless to
say, the allegation that lead (sic) petitioner
Maguigad used a falsified Com. Tax Cert. is
patently unfounded and malicious.
 
But that is not all. Respondents went further
and charged Profs. Mendoza, Espiritu,
Ramirez and Javier with the same crime of
falsification of public document . . . 'by
causing it to appear that Rogelio Maguigad
had indeed participated in the act of
verifying/subscribing and swearing the
subject petition before notary public Atty.
Jorge M. Ventayen, when in truth and in fact
he did not participate thereat.
 
To the mind of the undersigned, this is the
height of irresponsibility, coming as it does
from a member of the Philippine Bar. There
is no evidence to charge them with
falsification of public document, i.e. the
'verification appended to the present
petition. They did not even sign it. The crime
imputed is clearly bereft of merit. Frankly,
the undersigned thinks that even a dim-
witted first-year law student would not oblige
with such a very serious charge.
 
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyer[s] to
hear notaries public asking their sons, wives,
girlfriends, nephews, etc. to 'operate a
notarial office and sign for them. These
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits,
administer oaths, and certify documents.
Believing that the said 'veification was signed
by an impostor-relative of the notary public
[Atty. Jorge M. Ventayan] through no fault of
his client, Prof. Maguigad, the undersigned
sought the assistance of the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI). On May 2, 2002, an
NBI agent called up the undersigned to
inform him that he arrested in the area near
UE one Tancredo E. Ventayen whom he
caught in flagrante delicto notarizing an
affidavit of loss and feigning to be Atty. Jorge
M. Ventayen, supposedly his uncle. [25]
xxx
Petitioners devoted so much space in their
answer/comment vainly trying to prove that
Profs. Maguigad, Mendoza, Espiritu, Ramirez,
and Javier committed the crime of
falsification of public document reasoning out
that they made 'untruthful statements in the
narration of facts' in the basic petition.
 
Respondent Torres is a member of the
Philippine Bar. But what law books is he
reading?
P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 10
He should know or ought to know that the
allegations in petitioners' pleading are
absolutely privileged because the said
allegations or statements are relevant to the
issues. [26] (Underscoring supplied)
 
The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility for using inappropriate and
offensive remarks in his pleadings.
The pertinent portions of the Investigating
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
read:
 
Respondent admits that he was angry when
he wrote the Manifestationand alleges that
Complainant implicated his wife in a
burglary. Moreover, Respondent alleges that
Complainant has been 'engaged in
intimidating and harassing his wife.
 
It appears that herein Complainant and
herein Respondent's wife have had a series
of charges and counter-charges filed against
each other. Both parties being protagonists
in the intramurals within the University of
the East Faculty Association (UEFA). Herein
Complainant is the President of the UEFA
whereas Respondent's wife was the former
President of UEFA. Nevertheless, we shall
treat this matter of charges and counter-
charges filed, which involved the UEFA, as
extraneous, peripheral, if not outright
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
 
xxx
Clearly, [r]espondent's primordial reason for
the offensive remark stated in his pleadings
was his emotional reaction in view of the fact
that herein Complainant was in a legal
dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be
sustained. Indeed, the remarks quoted
above are offensive and inappropriate. That
the Respondent is representing his wife is
not at all an excuse. [27] (Underscoring
supplied)
 
 
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), by
Resolution [28] of October 7, 2004,
adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
The Report of the IBP faulting respondent is well-
taken but not its recommendation to reprimand
him.
It is well entrenched in Philippine
jurisprudence that for reasons of public

policy, utterances made in the course of
judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are
absolutely privileged so long as they
are pertinent and relevant to the subject
inquiry, however false or malicious they
may be. [29]
The requirements of materiality and relevancy
are imposed so that the protection given to
individuals in the interest of an efficient
administration of justice may not be abused as a
cloak from beneath which private malice may be
gratified. [30] If the pleader goes beyond the
requirements of the statute and alleges an
irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his
privilege. [31]
A matter, however, to which the privilege does
not extend must be so palpably wanting in
relation to the subject matter of the controversy
that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy
or impropriety. [32] That matter alleged in a
pleading need not be in every case material to
the issues presented by the pleadings. It must,
however, be legitimately related thereto, or
so pertinent to the subject of the controversy
that it may become the subject of inquiry in the
course of the trial. [33]
The first cause of action of complainants is based
on respondent's allegation in his 'Motion to
Expedite that a burglary of the UEFA office took
place, and his imputation to complainants of a
plausible motive for carrying out the burglary '
the concealment and destruction of vital
documents relating to the audit. The imputation
may be false but it could indeed possibly prompt
the BLR to speed up the resolution of the audit
case. In that light, this Court finds that the first
cause of action may not lie.
As regards the second cause of action, it appears
that respondent was irked by Atty. Torres' Answer
to the complaint in the attorney's fees case
wherein he criticized his (respondent's ) wife's
performance as past President of UEFA.
This Court does not countenance Atty. Torres'
incorporating in his Answer in the attorney's fees
case statements such as 'the assembly . . . was
apparently irked by Mrs. Eleonor Javier when she
was booed while talking on the floor like a
confused gabble (sic). But neither does it
countenance respondent's retaliating statements
like 'what kind of lawyer is Atty. Torres?, 'he lies
through his teeth, 'if he has any common sense at
all he should shut up, and Atty. Torres forgets the
sad chapter of his life as a practitioner when he
lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit
P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 11
which he filed to gain pogi points. Nor
respondent's emphasis that Atty. Torres is of the
habit of hurling baseless accusations against his
wife by stating that the dismissal of the cases
against his wife, of which Atty. Torres was the
complainant, indubitably indicate Atty. Torres'
pattern of mental dishonesty.
The issue in the attorney's fees case was whether
the 10% attorney's fees 'checked off from the
initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is
legal. Clearly, the above-quoted statements of
respondent in the immediately preceding
paragraph cannot be said to be relevant or
pertinent to the issue. That Atty. Torres may have
conducted himself improperly is not a justification
for respondent to be relieved from observing
professional conduct in his relations with Atty.
Torres.
Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever
may be the ill-feeling existing between clients
should not be allowed to influence counsel in their
conduct toward each other or toward suitors in
the case. [34]
In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was
acting as counsel for himself as respondent and
complainant was acting as counsel for his wife as
complainant. Although it is understandable, if not
justifiable, that in the defense of one's clients -
especially of one's wife or of one's self, the zeal in
so doing may be carried out to the point of undue
skepticism and doubts as to the motives of
opposing counsel, the spectacle presented by two
members of the bar engaged in bickering and
recrimination is far from edifying, and detract
from the dignity of the legal profession. [35]
Moreover, in arguing against the dismissal of the
attorney's fees case on the basis of the alleged
forgery of the notary public's signature,
respondent did not only endeavor to point out
that Atty. Torres erred in advancing such an
argument, but personally attacked Atty. Torres'
mental fitness by stating that 'the undersigned
thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law
student would not oblige with such a very serious
charge, and '[r]espondent Torres is a member of
the bar [b]ut what law books is he reading.
In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language must be dignified
and choice of language is important in the
preparation of pleadings. [36] In the assertion of
his client's rights, a lawyer ' even one gifted with
superior intellect 'is enjoined to rein up his
temper. [37]
 P A L E ( C a s e s f o r C a n o n 8 ) | 12

As reflected above, the inclusion of the
derogatory statements by respondent was
actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings
towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the
mantle of absolute immunity does not extend.
Personal colloquies between counsel which cause
delay and promote unseemly wrangling should be
carefully avoided. [38]
 
If indeed Atty. Torres filed criminal complaints for
falsification of public documents against
respondent's clients as a scheme to harass them,
they are not without adequate recourse in law,
for if they plead for a righteous cause, the course
of justice will surely tilt in their favor, the courts
being ever vigilant in the protection of a party's
rights. [39]
parties and causes of action of such complaint
are completely different from those of the
present complaint.
WHEREFORE , for employing offensive and
improper language in his pleadings, respondent
Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for One (1) Month, effective
upon receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
WARNED that any future infraction of a similar
nature shall be dealt with more severely. '
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office
of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides: A.C. No. 6672               September 4, 2009

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
  vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
CANON 8 ' A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESSS
AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS Note: Discussed in Canons 2 & 3
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
 
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
 
 

instructs that respondent's arguments in his

pleadings should be gracious to both the court
and opposing counsel and be of such words as
may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. [40] The language vehicle does not run
short of expressions which are emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive. [41]

As to the reference by respondent to the

unfortunate and contemptible practice of notaries
public ' basis of the last cause of action, while it
may detract from the dignity that should
characterize the legal profession and the
solemnity of a notarial document, respondent,
who justifies the same as legitimate defense of
his client who was being accused by Atty. Torres
of forgery, may, given the relevance of the
statement to the subject matter of the pleading,
be given the benefit of the doubt.

Respecting the verified complaint ' Annex 'EJ-

A [42] to the Comment of respondent filed by his
wife, Prof. Eleonor R. Javier, against complainant
Atty. Torres, the same cannot be consolidated
with the present administrative case since the