TOLENTINO V.

BAYLOSIS (1961)

FACTS: This case arose from Civil Case for the annulment of certificates of
title and recovery of damages, herein appellant Atty. Tolentino appeared as
counsel for plaintiff. Atty. Baylosis for the defendant, made the following
allegations in his pleading “reply to answer on counterclaim”:

a. The cause of death of the plaintiff may be due to the will of God, or
due to the heavy expenses which they may have suffered from their
leader and counsel;

b. Atty. Tolentino must be certainly not of his usual mind, otherwise

with his old age, and long practice of law, he would not have dared
to make such fictitious and malicious claim, and knowingly that this
Honorable Court is not the place for every exaggerated and
unreasonable demand in order to give trouble and worries to
defendant

c. Atty. Tolentino cannot be adjudged as a prominent attorney or a

bright attorney for his several failures in the bar and his several
losses of his cases are not in his favor
Urging that the statements aforequoted are libelous and derogatory to his
character and reputation as a known lawyer, as a former high government
official and employee, and as a citizen of good standing in the community
appellant initiated these proceedings and seeks to recover from the appellee
the sum of P100,000.00 as actual and moral damages.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Baylosis is liable for damages?

HELD: No. In the case at bar, the alleged defamatory remarks cannot be the
basis of an action for damages.

Although the language used by the Atty. Baylosis was undoubtedly strong, it
was made in legitimate defense of his own and his client’s interests. It is the
generally accepted rule that counsel, parties, or witnesses are exempted from
liability in libel or slander for words otherwise defamatory published in the
course of judicial proceedings, provided that the statements are connected
with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or subject of
inquiry.

However, the averments in paragraph (a) and (b) of the afore-stated pleading
of Atty. Baylosis were evidently conjectures that had no place in the pleading.
It appears however; that the appellant herein was libeled by way of retaliation
and that Atty. Tolentino personally attacked Atty. Baylosis.

Therefore, the Atty.Tolentino did not come to the court with clean hands and
is not entitled to the claim of damages against Atty. Baylosis.