1.

Alawi vs Alauya
A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997
(Usurpation of title of “Attorney”, insulting words by an Exec Clerk of Sharia Court against a private person)

Facts:

Sophia Alawi was a sales agent of EB Villarosa & Partners, Co., a real estate and housing company in Davao City
while Ashari Alauya was executive clerk of a Sharia Court in Marawi City and a member of the Sharia Bar. They
were classmates and friends. It appears that Alauya purchased one of the housing units of the firm on installment, a
contract was executed, and through it, a housing loan was granted to Alawi by the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation.

Six months later from execution of contract, Alauya sent a complaint letter to the president and the vice president of
the firm advising it to terminate the contract on the basis of vitiated consent. In his letter, he signed as “Attorney
Ashary M. Alauya”. Alauya alleged that the contract was executed without his authorization and against his free
will. That he was induced to sign a blank document based on Alawi’s assurances that she would later show the final
contents thereof for Alauya’s correction.

Furthermore, in Alauya’s letter to the firm, he used excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language against
Alawi as when he described the latter as an “unscrupulous and swindling sales agent” and “who had fooled him by
means of deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence”.

Upon learning of Alauya’s complaint, Alawi filed a complaint with the Sharia Court accusing Alauya, among others,
of usurping the title of “attorney” and imputations of malicious and libelous charges without solid ground.

Alauya justified the use of “attorney” as “lexically synonymous” with “counsellors-at-law”, a title to which Sharia
lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of "attorney" because "counsellor" is often mistaken for
"councilor," "konsehal" or the Maranao term "consial," connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal,
he does not consider himself a lawyer.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Alauya usurped the title of “attorney”.

2. Whether or not Alauya’s use of virulent or insulting words were appropriate.

Ruling:

1. Yes, Alauya usurped the title of “attorney” because the Supreme Court held that only those who passed the bar
examinations and admitted in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are authorized to use the title “attorney”.

2. No, Alauya’s use of virulent or insulting words were inappropriate.

The Supreme Court held that:

Righteous indignation, or vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative language, or downright name-
calling. As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more
stringent than for most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive,
offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. As a judicial employee, it is expected that he accord respect
for the person and the rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be characterized by
prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity.