Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics 1

SY 2022 - 2023
Atty. Chris Tenorio
Arellano University – School of Law

CASE DIGEST
Atty. Fernando P. Perito v. Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina ET. AL.
A.C. No. 12631
July 8, 2020
Prepared by: Fidel M. Rubias

Complainant/Plaintiff/Petitioner:
Atty. Fernando P. Perito
Respondent:
Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Ryan R. Besid, Atty. Richie L. Tiblani, and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit
Facts:
Complainant herewith is representing Josephine Bracamonte et. al. (Bracamontes) against
Respondents who are private prosecutor in a kidnapping case filed at Branch 169 – Regional Trial
Court of Malabon (RTC) which was subsequently dismissed by the DOJ in relation to the charges.
Respondents then filed a Petition for Review to the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, the RTC
provisionally dismissed the case, herein Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
likewise denied due to lack of conformity from the public prosecutor, this has resulted to the filing of
by the Respondent a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
Due to the pertinacious nature of the filing of legal actions, the Bracamontes filed a disbarment case
against Respondents. Respondents, believing that the Complainant is the one behind the disbarment
case, they have filed a countersuit against Complainant of the same charge. Both Disbarment
charges was dismissed by the IBP-BOG.
Hence, this case was filed by the Complainant himself to disbar the Respondents in the grounds
tirelessly persecuting the Bracamontes in the kidnapping even though it was already dismissed by
both the DOJ and the RTC, and for filing a baseless disbarment case against him.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the Respondents acted out in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for lawyers.
Held:
1. No, the legal actions instituted by herein Respondent are appropriate remedies in the
furtherance of the interest of their client. This in itself does not violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, it is even buttressed by the said code, particularly the Canons 17 and 19. The
three (3) disbarment cases instituted stemmed from the same kidnapping cases, therefore,
making such legal action deemed to be encouraged by bad blood among the counsel.
Complainant, nonetheless, has failed to provide substantial evidence to establish a solid
disbarment case in accordance to violations arising from the letters of the CPR.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Ryan R. Besid,
Atty. Riche L. Tiblani, and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit is hereby DISMISSED.

FMRubias-2023-06-02-CD5