SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 5768 March 26, 2010

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, R., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon another
lawyer and iled a !aseless suit a"ainst him.
The #acts and the Case
On $anuary %%, &''% complainant (tty. )oniacio T. )arandon, $r. iled a complaint*aidavit% with the
Inte"rated )ar o the +hilippines Commission on )ar Discipline ,I)+*C)D- see.in" the dis!arment,
suspension rom the practice o law, or imposition o appropriate disciplinary action a"ainst
respondent (tty. Edwin /. #errer, Sr. or the ollowin" oenses0
%. On Novem!er &&, &''' (tty. #errer, as plainti1s counsel in Civil Case 2'3', iled a reply
with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained a!usive, oensive, and improper
lan"ua"e which insinuated that (tty. )arandon presented a alsiied document in court.
&. (tty. #errer iled a a!ricated char"e a"ainst (tty. )arandon in Civil Case 2'3' or alle"ed
alsiication o pu!lic document when the document alle"edly alsiied was a notari4ed
document e5ecuted on #e!ruary &6, %773, at a date when (tty. )arandon was not yet a lawyer
nor was assi"ned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a si"natory to the document.
6. On Decem!er %7, &''', at the courtroom o 8unicipal Trial Court ,8TC- Daet !eore the
start o hearin", (tty. #errer, evidently drun., threatened (tty. )arandon sayin", 9:a!an .un"
la!an, patayan .un" patayan, .asama an" lahat n" pamilya. ;ala na palan" ma"alin" na
a!o"ado sa Camarines Norte, an" a!o"ado na rito ay m"a ta"a*Camarines Sur, umuwi na
.ayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi .ayo ta"a*rito.9
3. (tty. #errer made his accusation o alsiication o pu!lic document without !otherin" to
chec. the copy with the Oice o the Cler. o Court and, with "ross i"norance o the law,
ailed to consider that a notari4ed document is presumed to !e "enuine and authentic until
proven otherwise.
<. The Court had warned (tty. #errer in his irst dis!arment case a"ainst repeatin" his
unethical act= yet he aces a dis!arment char"e or se5ual harassment o an oice secretary
o the I)+ Chapter in Camarines Norte= a related criminal case or acts o lasciviousness= and
criminal cases or li!el and "rave threats that (tty. )arandon iled a"ainst him. In Octo!er
&''', (tty. #errer as.ed (tty. )arandon to alsiy the daily time record o his son who wor.ed
with the Commission on Settlement o :and +ro!lems, Department o $ustice. ;hen (tty.
)arandon declined, (tty. #errer repeatedly harassed him with inlammatory lan"ua"e.
(tty. #errer raised the ollowin" deenses in his answer with motion to dismiss0
%. Instead o havin" the alle"ed or"ed document su!mitted or e5amination, (tty. )arandon
iled char"es o li!el and "rave threats a"ainst him. These char"es came a!out !ecause (tty.
#errer1s clients iled a case or alsiication o pu!lic document a"ainst (tty. )arandon.
&. The oended party in the alsiication case, Imelda +alatolon, vouchsaed that her
thum!mar. in the waiver document had !een alsiied.
6. (t the time (tty. #errer alle"edly uttered the threatenin" remar.s a"ainst (tty. )arandon,
the 8TC Daet was already in session. It was impro!a!le that the court did not ta.e steps to
stop, admonish, or cite (tty. #errer in direct contempt or his !ehavior.
3. (tty. )arandon presented no evidence in support o his alle"ations that (tty. #errer was
drun. on Decem!er %7, &''' and that he de"raded the law proession. The latter had
received various citations that spea. well o his character.
<. The cases o li!el and "rave threats that (tty. )arandon iled a"ainst (tty. #errer were still
pendin". Their mere ilin" did not ma.e the latter "uilty o the char"es. (tty. )arandon was
orum shoppin" when he iled this dis!arment case since it reerred to the same li!el and
"rave threats su!>ect o the criminal cases.
In his reply aidavit,& (tty. )arandon !rou"ht up a si5th "round or dis!arment. ?e alle"ed that on
Decem!er &7, &''' at a!out %06' p.m., while (tty. #errer was on !oard his son1s ta5i, it i"ured in a
collision with a tricycle, resultin" in serious in>uries to the tricycle1s passen"ers. 6 )ut neither (tty.
#errer nor any o his co*passen"ers helped the victims and, durin" the police investi"ation, he
denied .nowin" the ta5i driver and !lamed the tricycle driver or !ein" drun.. (tty. #errer also
prevented an eyewitness rom reportin" the accident to the authorities.3
(tty. )arandon claimed that the alsiication case a"ainst him had already !een dismissed. ?e
!elittled the citations (tty. #errer alle"edly received. On the contrary, in its Resolution ''*%, < the
I)+*Camarines Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as >ud"e o the 8TC o 8ercedes,
Camarines Sur, on the "round that he did not have 9the @ualiications, inte"rity, intelli"ence, industry
and character o a trial >ud"e9 and that he was acin" a criminal char"e or acts o lasciviousness and
a dis!arment case iled !y an employee o the same I)+ chapter.
On Octo!er %', &''% Investi"atin" Commissioner 8ila"ros V. San $uan o the I)+*C)D su!mitted to
this Court a Report, recommendin" the suspension or two years o (tty. #errer. The Investi"atin"
Commissioner ound enou"h evidence on record to prove (tty. #errer1s violation o Canons A.'% and
2.'6 o the Code o +roessional Responsi!ility. ?e attri!uted to (tty. )arandon, as counsel in Civil
Case 2'3', the alsiication o the plainti1s aidavit despite the a!sence o evidence that the
document had in act !een alsiied and that (tty. )arandon was a party to it. The Investi"atin"
Commissioner also ound that (tty. #errer uttered the threatenin" remar.s imputed to him in the
presence o other counsels, court personnel, and liti"ants !eore the start o hearin".
On $une &7, &''& the I)+ )oard o Bovernors passed Resolution CV*&''&*&&<,D adoptin" and
approvin" the Investi"atin" Commissioner1s recommendation !ut reduced the penalty o
suspension to only one year.
(tty. #errer iled a motion or reconsideration !ut the )oard denied it in its Resolution2 o Octo!er
%7, &''& on the "round that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On #e!ruary <,
&''6, however, the Court reerred !ac. the case to the I)+ or resolution o (tty. #errer1s motion or
reconsideration.A On 8ay &&, &''A the I)+ )oard o Bovernors adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation7 o the Investi"atin" Commissioner that denied (tty. #errer1s motion or
reconsideration.%'
On #e!ruary %2, &''7, (tty. #errer iled a Comment on )oard o Bovernors1 I)+ Notice o Resolution
No. CVIII*&''A.%% On (u"ust %&, &''7 the Court resolved to treat (tty. #errer1s comment as a petition
or review under Rule %67 o the Revised Rules o Court. (tty. )arandon iled his
comment,%& reiteratin" his ar"uments !eore the I)+. #urther, he presented certiied copies o
orders issued !y courts in Camarines Norte that warned (tty. #errer a"ainst appearin" in court
drun..%6
The Issues +resented
The issues presented in this case are0
%. ;hether or not the I)+ )oard o Bovernors and the I)+ Investi"atin" Commissioner erred
in indin" respondent (tty. #errer "uilty o the char"es a"ainst him= and
&. I in the airmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is >ustiied.
The Court1s Rulin"
;e have e5amined the records o this case and ind no reason to disa"ree with the indin"s and
recommendation o the I)+ )oard o Bovernors and the Investi"atin" Commissioner.
The practice o law is a privile"e "iven to lawyers who meet the hi"h standards o le"al proiciency
and morality. (ny violation o these standards e5poses the lawyer to administrative lia!ility.%3
Canon A o the Code o +roessional Responsi!ility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves
with courtesy, airness and candor towards their ellow lawyers and avoid harassin" tactics a"ainst
opposin" counsel. Speciically, in Rule A.'%, the Code provides0
Rule A.'%. E ( lawyer shall not, in his proessional dealin"s, use lan"ua"e which is a!usive, oensive
or otherwise improper.
(tty. #errer1s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to (tty.
)arandon the alsiication o the Salaysay (idavit o the plainti in Civil Case 2'3'. ?e made this
imputation with pure malice or he had no evidence that the aidavit had !een alsiied and that
(tty. )arandon authored the same.
8oreover, (tty. #errer could have aired his char"e o alsiication in a proper orum and without
usin" oensive and a!usive lan"ua"e a"ainst a ellow lawyer. To @uote portions o what he said in
his reply with motion to dismiss0
%. That the answer is rau"ht with "rave and culpa!le misrepresentation and 9#(:SI#IC(TION9 o
documents, committed to mislead this ?onora!le Court, !ut with concomitant "rave responsi!ility o
counsel or Deendants, or distortion and serious misrepresentation to the court, or presentin" a
"rossly 9#(:SI#IED9 document, in violation o his oath o oice as a "overnment employee and as
mem!er o the )ar, or the reason, that, +lainti, I8E:D( +(:(TO:ON, has never e5ecuted the
9S(:(FS(F (##ID(VIT9, wherein her in"erprint has !een alsiied, in view whereo, here!y DENF
the same includin" the airmative deenses, there !ein" no .nowled"e or inormation to orm a
!elie as to the truth o the same, rom pars. ,%- to par. ,%<- which are all lies and mere a!rications,
suicient "round or 9DIS)(R8ENT9 o the one responsi!le or said alsiication and distortions.9%<
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use di"niied lan"ua"e in their pleadin"s despite the
adversarial nature o our le"al system.%D
(tty. #errer had li.ewise violated Canon 2 o the Code o +roessional Responsi!ility which en>oins
lawyers to uphold the di"nity and inte"rity o the le"al proession at all times. Rule 2.'6 o the Code
provides0
Rule 2.'6. E ( lawyer shall not en"a"e in conduct that adversely relect on his itness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in pu!lic or private lie !ehave in scandalous manner to the discredit o the
le"al proession.
Several disinterested persons conirmed (tty. #errer1s drun.en invectives at (tty. )arandon shortly
!eore the start o a court hearin". (tty. #errer did not present convincin" evidence to support his
denial o this particular char"e. ?e merely presented a certiication rom the police that its !lotter
or the day did not report the threat he supposedly made. (tty. )arandon presented, however, the
police !lotter on a su!se@uent date that recorded his complaint a"ainst (tty. #errer.
(tty. #errer said, 9:a!an .un" la!an, patayan .un" patayan, .asama an" lahat n" pamilya. ;ala na
palan" ma"alin" na a!o"ado sa Camarines Norte, an" a!o"ado na rito ay m"a ta"a*Camarines Sur,
umuwi na .ayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi .ayo ta"a*rito.9 Evidently, he uttered these with intent to
annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit (tty. )arandon in the presence o lawyers, court
personnel, and liti"ants waitin" or the start o hearin" in court. These lan"ua"e is un!ecomin" a
mem!er o the le"al proession. The Court cannot countenance it.
Thou"h a lawyer1s lan"ua"e may !e orceul and emphatic, it should always !e di"niied and
respectul, !eittin" the di"nity o the le"al proession. The use o intemperate lan"ua"e and un.ind
ascriptions has no place in the di"nity o >udicial orum. %2 (tty. #errer ou"ht to have reali4ed that
this sort o pu!lic !ehavior can only !rin" down the le"al proession in the pu!lic estimation and
erode pu!lic respect or it. ;hatever moral ri"hteousness (tty. #errer had was ne"ated !y the way
he chose to e5press his indi"nation.%avvphi%
Contrary to (tty. #errer1s alle"ation, the Court inds that he has !een accorded due process. The
essence o due process is to !e ound in the reasona!le opportunity to !e heard and su!mit any
evidence one may have in support o one1s deense.%A So lon" as the parties are "iven the
opportunity to e5plain their side, the re@uirements o due process are satisactorily complied
with.%7 ?ere, the I)+ Investi"atin" Commissioner "ave (tty. #errer all the opportunities to ile
countless pleadin"s and reute all the alle"ations o (tty. )arandon.
(ll lawyers should ta.e heed that they are licensed oicers o the courts who are mandated to
maintain the di"nity o the le"al proession, hence they must conduct themselves honora!ly and
airly.&' (tty. #errer1s display o improper attitude, arro"ance, mis!ehavior, and misconduct in the
perormance o his duties !oth as a lawyer and oicer o the court, !eore the pu!lic and the court,
was a patent trans"ression o the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
ACCORDIN!"Y, the Court AFFIRM the 8ay &&, &''A Resolution o the I)+ )oard o Bovernors in
C)D Case '%*A'7 and ORDER the suspension o (tty. Edwin /. #errer, Sr. rom the practice o law
or one year eective upon his receipt o this Decision.
:et a copy o this Decision !e entered in (tty. #errer1s personal record as an attorney with the Oice
o the )ar Conidant and a copy o the same !e served to the I)+ and to the Oice o the Court
(dministrator or circulation to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
;E CONCGR0
ANTONIO T. CAR#IO
(ssociate $ustice
ART$RO D. BRION
(ssociate $ustice
MARIANO C. DE" CATI""O
(ssociate $ustice
JOE #ORT$!A" #EREZ
(ssociate $ustice
Foo%&o%'(
% Rollo, pp. &*7.
& Id. at 2%.
6 Id. at 26.
3 Id. at 23*2<.
< Id. at %&'.
D Id. at %62.
2 Id. at %D3.
A Id. at &'6.
7 Id. at <A<*D''.
%' Id. at <A3.
%% Id. at D'%*D'D.
%& Id. at 2&A*263.
%6 Id. at 23'*23%.
%3 Barcia v. )ala, (.C. No. <'67, Novem!er &<, &''<, 32D SCR( A<, 7%.
%< Rollo, p. %&.
%D Saberon v. Larong, (.C. No. D<D2, (pril %D, &''A, <<% SCR( 6<7, 6DA.
%2 De la Rosa v. Court o (ppeals $ustices, 3<3 +hil. 2%A, 2&2 ,&''6-.
%A )aton"!a.al v. /ara, 3A7 +hil. 6D2, 62A ,&''<-.
%7 Calma v. Court of Appeals, 6D& +hil. &72, 6'3 ,%777-.
&' (tty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 3<6 +hil. 77, %'3 ,&''6-.