Sophia Alawi v. Ashary M. Alauya, A.M. SDC.

-97-2-P
Clerk of Court Vi, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City FEB 24, 1997

Sophia Alawi,
Complainant,

-versus-

Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court

Vi, Shari’a District Court, Marawi
City,
Respondent.

A.M. SDC.-97-2-P
FEBRUARY 24, 1997

FACTS:
 Sophia Alawi (hereinafter “Alawi”) was a sales representative of E.B Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd of Davao City, (hereinafter “E.B Villarosa & Co.”) a real estate
and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya (hereinafter “Alauya” was the incumbent
executive clerk of court of the 4 th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City. The two
used to be classmates and friends.

A contract was executed through Alawi’s agency, E.B Villarosa & Co, for the
purchase on installments by Alauya on one of the housing units of the above-
mentioned firm, and in connection, a housing loan was granted to Alauya by the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (hereinafter “NHMFC”).

On December 15, 1995, Alauya wrote a letter to the President of E.B Villarosa &
Co. to notify of the termination of his contract with the company on the grounds
that Alawi vitiated Alauya’s consent by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud,
dishonesty, and abuse of confidence which made the said contract void ab initio.
Alauya then also sent a copy of the letter to the Vice-President of the firm at San
Pedro, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, through post and bore no stamps. Instead at
the right-hand corner above the description of the addressee, was typed “Free
Postage -PD 26”

On the same date, Alauya also wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga (hereinafter
“Arzaga”, Vice-President, Credit & Collection Group of the NHMFC, stating of the
fraudulent and void contract with E.B. Villarosa & Co., and asking for a
cancellation of his housing loan, in connection therewith. Which was payable
through salary deduction with an amount of Php 4,338.00 a month.

Alauya, also wrote three (3) subsequent letters to Mr. Arzaga, dated February 21,
1996, April 15, 1996, and May 3, 1996, all of which bore the same reasons and
insisted on the cancellation of his housing loan and discontinuance of deductions
from his salary.

On January 18, 1996, Alauya also wrote a letter to Ms. Corazon M. Ordoñez,
Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance
Division of this court, to stop the deductions from his salary in relation to the loan.
On May 1996, the NHFMC wrote to this court requesting it to stop deductions on
Sophia Alawi v. Ashary M. Alauya, A.M. SDC.-97-2-P
Clerk of Court Vi, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City FEB 24, 1997

Alauya's UHLP loan "effective May 1996." and began negotiating with Villarosa &
Co. for the buy-back of Alauya's mortgage. and the refund of his payments.

On December 15, 1995, upon learning of Alauya’s letter to the E.B. Villarosa &
Co., Sophia Alawi filed a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996, to which she
appended a copy of the letter and the envelope bearing the “Free Postage – PD
26” on the following grounds;

1. “Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds

through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith”
2. “Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established
reputation”
3. Unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage, and
4. Inaccurate usage of the tile “attorney” which only members of the
Philippine Bar may properly use.

In response to the verified complaint, Alauya then filed his Preliminary Comment
in which he questioned the authority of Atty. Marasigan to require an explanation
of him. According to him only a District Judge may investigate an Executive Clerk
of Court and not of a mere Asst. Division of Clerk of Court. And in his Comment
he explain/ answer Alawi’s accusation. The following are his claims;

1. Alauya contended that it was he who suffered undue injury,

considering that in six months, a total of Php 26,028.60 had been
deducted from his salary.
2. He declared that there was no basis for the complaint, and in
communicating with E.B Villarosa & Co. he had merely acted in his
defense of his right.
3. He then also denied any abuse of the privilege, stating that he gave
Php20.00 plus transportation to his subordinate for the mailing of the
letters, and that the words “Free Postage -PD 26” were typewritten on
the envelope by some other person, and as far as his knowledge, his
subordinate mailed the letters with the use of the money he had given.
4. Alauya justified that his use of the title “attorney” is “lexically
synonymous” with the “Counselors-at-law”, a title to which Shari’a
Lawyers have a rightful claim. Adding that he prefers to use the title
“attorney” as the “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor”
connoting of local legislator. And insisting that he does not consider
himself a Lawyer.

The Court then referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for
evaluation, report, and recommendation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not, Ashari Alauya violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Official Employees (RA 6713);
2. Whether or not, Ashari Alauya has the right to use the title “attorney”

RULING:
Sophia Alawi v. Ashary M. Alauya, A.M. SDC.-97-2-P
Clerk of Court Vi, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City FEB 24, 1997

1. Yes. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Official
Employees (RA 6713), enunciates the State policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Sec. 4 if the
code commands that “public officials and employees, at all times must
respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety, and public
interest. Mr. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a right of action against
Ms. Alawi, however, the law requires that he exercise that right with propriety,
without malice or vindictiveness, and in a manner consistent with good morals
and good customs. As an officer of the court and a member of the Shari’a
Bar, he may not use language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous,
menacing, or otherwise improper, similar to the way of manner he had
accused of Sophia Alawi in those letters.

2. No, Ashari Alauya does not have the right to use the title “attorney” as he is
only a Shari’a Bar member and is not a member of the Philippine Bar. The
Supreme Court had already declared that persons who pass the Shari’a Bar
are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence they may only
practice law before the Shari’a Courts. Only those who have obtained a
necessary degree in law, pass the Philippine Bar Examination, have been
admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and remain members in
good standing have the right to use the title “attorney” and have the right to
practice law in the Philippines.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the above-stated facts, respondent Ashary M.

Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessively intemperate,
insulting or virulent language, and for usurping the title of attorney; and he is
warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be
dealt with more severely.