B.

LAWYERS DUTY TO HlS COLLEAGUES

CANON 8
CASE # 45
A. C. No. 5398 December 3, 2002
ANTONlO A. ALCANTARA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARlANO PEFlANCO, respondent.
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper
and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
FACTS:
PETlTlONER
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorneys Office in
San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May l8, 2000, while Atty. Ramon Salvani lll was conferring with a client in the
Public Attorneys Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached them. Complainant
saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as
a hearing was taking place in another room.
RESPONDENT
At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and
his client, saying, "Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para mahibal-an na anang sala." ("Why
do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.")
PETlTlONER
As head of the Office, complainant approached respondent and asked him to take it easy and leave Atty. Salvani to
settle the matter. Respondent at first listened, but shortly after he again started shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani.
To avoid any scene with respondent, complainant went inside his office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside
prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the Public Attorneys Office.
RESPONDENT
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing, but when he came back he heard respondent Pefianco
saying: "Nagsiling si Atty. Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO, buyon nga klase ka tawo." ("Atty.
Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO, what an idiot.") Then, upon seeing complainant, respondent
pointed his finger at him and repeated his statement for the other people in the office to hear. At this point, according
to complainant, he confronted respondent Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had
no business there. Complainant said respondent resented this and started hurling invectives at him. According to
complainant, respondent even took a menacing stance towards him.
lSSUE
WON RESPONDENT VlOLATE CANON 8
RULlNG:
YES.
We find the recommendation of the lBP Committee on Bar Discipline to be well taken.
The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in question. The
affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm complainants allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and
hurled invectives at him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him (complainant).
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityl admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
They must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach
at all times.2
ln this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. He
had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled.
Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the
case.
Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been murdered as she was pleading
for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. Be that as it may, respondent should realize that what
he thought was righteous did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the
accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. Even when he was being pacified, respondent did not
relent. lnstead he insulted and berated those who tried to calm him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil
and Robert Minguez, who went to the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the commotion, and two guards at
the Hall of Justice, who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal rampage. Respondent ought
to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and
erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
DEClSlON
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUlLTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FlNED in the amount of Pl,000.00 and
REPRlMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more severely.
CASE 46
A.C. No. 6567April l6, 2008
Saberon vs. Larong
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DlVlSlON
A.C. No. 6567 April l6, 2008
JOSE C. SABERON, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG, respondent.
FACTS:
ln a Complaintl filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant, this Court, complainant Jose C. Saberon (complainant)
charged Atty. Fernando T. Larong (respondent) of grave misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive
language in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
PETlTlONER
Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition2 against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (the bank) and Alfredo
Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the majority stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of the bank's
registration and franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the bank's and/or Bonpin's refusal to return various
checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan obtained by his (complainant's) wife, despite alleged full
payment of the loan and interests.
RESPONDENT
Respondent, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an Answer with Affirmative
Defenses3 to the Petition stating, inter alia,
5. That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff [herein complainant Jose C. Saberon] and his
wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain
x x x x.4 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent made statements of the same tenor in his Rejoinder5 to complainant's Reply.
PETlTlONER
Finding the aforementioned statements to be "totally malicious, viscous [sic] and bereft of any factual or legal basis,"
complainant filed the present complaint.
RESPONDENT
ln his Comment to [the] Petition for Review, respondent states that the administrative complaint against him is a
harassment suit given that it was in his capacity as counsel for the bank and Bonpin that he filed the Answer objected
to by complainant.
Moreover, respondent claims that the purportedly offensive allegation was a statement of fact which he had backed
up with a narration of the chronological incidents and suits filed by complainant and his wife against his clients. That
being the case, he contends that the allegation made in the Answer must be considered absolutely privileged just like
allegations made in any complaint or initiatory pleading.
Finally, complainant refuses to accede to respondent's entreaty for clemency.
lSSUE:
WON RESPONDENT VlLOLATED CANON 8
RULlNG
YES.
This Court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.0l - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
CANON ll - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule ll.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in
pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.l4
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the
use of offensive and abusive language.l5 Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.l6
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged.l7 ln keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings must be dignified.l8
lt is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious statements of respondent were made not before a court but
before the BSP. A similar submission that actuations of and statements made by lawyers before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) are not covered by the Code of Professional Responsibility, the NLRC not being a
court, was struck down in Lubiano v. Gordolla,l9 thus:
Respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the National Labor Relations Commission, he
nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but
to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics.20
The observation applies with equal force to the case at bar.
Respecting respondent's argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before the BSP were privileged, it
suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of
the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and
propriety in making such remark or comment.2l
True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered
as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and
relevant to the subject of inquiry.22 The test of relevancy has been stated, thus:
x x x. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make alleged defamatory matters privileged the courts
favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the
subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety. ln order that
matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the
pleadings. lt must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it
may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial x x x. 23
Granting that the proceedings before the BSP partake of the nature of judicial proceedings, the ascription of
'blackmail' in the Answer and Rejoinder filed by respondent is not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject
matters of inquiry before the BSP, which were Bonpin's alleged alien citizenship and majority stockholding in the
bank. Those issues were amply discussed in the Answer with Affirmative Defenses without need of the further
allegation that the Petition was "another in a series of blackmail suits . . . to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for
financial gain." Hence, such allegation was unnecessary and uncalled for. More so, considering that complainant and
his wife were well within their rights to file the cases against the bank and/or Bonpin to protect their interests and seek
redress of their grievances.
XX
Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a grievous character as to
merit respondent's disbarment. ln light of respondent's apologies, the Court finds it best to temper the penalty for his
infraction which, under the circumstances, is considered simple, rather than grave, misconduct.
DEClSlON
WHEREFORE, complainant's petition is partly GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Fernando T. Larong, is found guilty of
SlMPLE MlSCONDUCT for using intemperate language. He is FlNED P2,000 with a stern WARNlNG that a
repetition of this or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of
respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing,Chairperson Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Brion, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
l Rollo, pp. l-5. Filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant on September 22, 2004.
CASE 47
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THlRD DlVlSlON
A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. LUlS MElNRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGlNA D. BALMORES, CATHERlNE V. LAUREL and HUBERT
JOAQUlN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOClATES LAW OFFlCES, respondents.
VlTUG, J.:
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel,
much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his
counsel. lt is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.
FACTS
PETlTlONER:
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law
Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert
Joaquin P. Bustos.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College ("AMACC"), in an action
for the lssuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory lnjunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City,
charged that respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without
his knowledge, compromise agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in the aforementioned
civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the
principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant
averred that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
lSSUE:
WON RESPONDENT VlOLATED CANON 9
RULlNG:
YES
lt would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized,
complainant was by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan
had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter
to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of
respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional
ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as
a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
The Court can only thus concur with the lBP lnvestigating Commission and the lBP Board of Governors in their
findings; nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty
given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent.
DEClSlON
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. The case against the other
respondents is DlSMlSSED for insufficiency of evidence.
Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member of the
Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the lntegrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts in the country.lwphil.nt
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
CASE 48
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FlRST DlVlSlON
A.C. No. 6422 August 28, 2007
WlLFREDO T. GARClA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BENlAMlNO A. LOPEZ, Respondent.
R E S O L U T l O N
CORONA, J.:
ln a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged respondent Atty. Beniamino
A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court, and misrepresentation, amounting
to perjury and prayed that respondent be suspended or disbarred.
PETlTlONER:
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96 which was pending
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch l5.l Sarmiento sought the registration and
confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land
XXXX The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or
his representative in contempt of court. Hearings were scheduled.
RESPONDENT:
On September l9, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed his entry of
appearance and motion for postponement.4
PETlTlONER:
Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from the case. He
contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court that he was the counsel of all the
heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel of record. According to him, his
attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his appearance
at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount to "unfair harvesting" of the fruit of complainant's labors since
l996.5
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the lntegrated Bar of the Philippines (lBP). The
investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and recommendation dated January 8, 2004, found
respondent guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. He recommended that
respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a repetition of the same or similar offense would
be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the lBP Board of Governors in its resolution passed
on February 27, 2004.
lSSUE:
WON RESPONDENT VlOLATED CANON 8
RULlNG:
YES.
We affirm the factual findings of the lBP but modify the penalty recommended.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the causes of their clients.
The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities. Membership in the bar imposes on them
certain obligations.7 They are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly
and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.8
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client relationship
was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. ln filing an entry of
appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the "compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento" when in
truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation
which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his
lawyer's oath that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court."
Likewise, the CPR states:
CANON l0 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAlRNESS AND GOOD FAlTH TO THE COURT.
Rule l0.0l A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
their fellow lawyers:
CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues,
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
x x x x x x x x x
Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking
relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel
for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from the very
beginning (i.e. since l996) and who had not been discharged as such. lt is true that without the formal withdrawal of
complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by
being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal
functions of complainant as the counsel of record.lavvphil
We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a calculated deception, he was
still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He should have been more careful about his actuation since
the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the truth.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (l)
month for violating Canons 8 and l0, Rules 8.02 and l0.0l of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is warned
that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: