*
A.C. No. 6396. October 25, 2005.

ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, complainant, vs. ATTY.

VIRGIL R. CASTRO, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Legal Ethics; By constantly checking

the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately
encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case.—
Respondent’s explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when
its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not
being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the
parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the
clerk of court. Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

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. Through his
acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No.
784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the
counsel of record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good
faith.
Same; Same; Same; In the course of his questionable activities relating
to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the
court. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he
did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.—In the course of
his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted
rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of
court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-
mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman
and in front of her subordinates. As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco,
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. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01.
Same; Same; Same; Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.—Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers 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 towards each other and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times.
Same; Same; Same; The highest reward that can be bestowed on
lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.—The highest reward that can be
bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be
purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is
born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates
solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Unprofessional

Conduct.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 3

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at

a Clerk of Court. Members of the bar decorum must at all times
comfort themselves in a manner befitting their noble profession.
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva
Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of 1
the Integrated Bar of the 2Philippines (IBP) a
Complaint-Affidavit with supporting documents against respondent
Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically
violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03,3 Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The charge in the complaint is
summed up as follows:
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-
President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respon-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-4.

2Id., at pp. 5-9.
3 CANON 7—A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
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 8.02—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.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

dent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the complete

records of Civil Case No. 784, entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v.
Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin, had already been
remanded to the court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso
Castaned, Nueva Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not
the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case No. 784.
Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet
been transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision of the
Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent
retorted scornfully, “Who will certify the Court of Appeals’
Decision, the Court of Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have
to go to Manila to get a certified true copy?” Surprised at this
outburst, complainant replied, “Sir, it’s in the Rules but you could
show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be representing.”
Respondent then replied, “Then you should have notified me of the
said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been
frequenting your office since then, but you never bothered to notify
me.” Complainant replied, “It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of
the said requirement.”
Respondent then answered, “You mean to say it is not your duty
to remand the record of the case?” Complainant responded, “No, Sir,
I mean, it’s not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy
of the Court of Appeals’ decision.” Respondent angrily declared in
Ilocano, “Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?”
(“You mean to say you don’t care anymore? Is that the way it is?”)
He then turned and left the office, banging the door on his way out
to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard
by the people4 at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was
taking place.
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still
enraged, and pointed his finger at complainant and shouted,
“Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales
kaniak ah!” (“Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 2 and 5.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 5

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

against my client, don’t turn your ire on me!”) Complainant was

shocked at respondent’s words but still managed to reply, “I don’t
even know your client, Sir.” Respondent left the office and as he
passed by complainant’s window, he again shouted, “Ukinnam nga
5
babai!” (“Vulva of your mother, you woman!”)
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it
happened in her office of which she was, and still is, the head and in
front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and
diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect
6
from her staff.
The Complaint-Affidavit, 7
filed three days after the incident, was
supported by an Affidavit signed by employees of RTC-Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed the incident. The Affidavit narrated
the same incident as witnessed by the said employees. A Motion to
File Additional Affidavit/Documentary 8
Evidence was filed by
complainant on 25 September 2003. 9
On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued an Order requiring
respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent
10
submitted his Compliance dated 18 June 2003. Respondent
explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
847, entitled Sps. Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin
Castillano, et al., filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30.
He learned of the

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 3 and 6.

6 Id., at p. 3.
7 Id., at pp. 5-6. It is signed by Carmelita E. Caoile, Thelma R. Moya, Nestor L.
Rojo, William F. Jandoc and Jovencio Guyod. The names of Ruben Panganiban and
Eliezer Ordonez are affixed on the Affidavit but do not bear their signatures. An
attached Explanation, Id., at p. 7, clarifies that Ruben Panganiban did not sign the
Affidavit as he did not witness the whole incident, having left the office during the
height thereof. Eliezer Ordonez, on the other hand, was able to observe the whole
incident but was out of the province at the time of filing of the complaint and was
therefore unable to sign the Affidavit.
8 Id., at pp. 79-93.
9 Id., at p. 47.
10 Id., at pp. 48-53.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.

64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847 before the lower court.
Prior to the incident, he went to the office of the complainant to
request for the transmittal of the records of the case to the MCTC
and the complainant reassured him of the same.
Respondent admits having inquired about the status of the
transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003. However, he has no
explanation as to what transpired on that day. Instead, he narrates
that on 25 May 2003, twelve days after the incident, the records had
not yet been transmitted, and he subsequently learned that these
records were returned to the court of origin.
The hearing for the administrative complaint before the CBD was
set on 25 September 2003 by the Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan. However, on said date, only complainant
appeared. 11The latter also moved that the case be submitted for
resolution. Respondent later on filed a Manifestation stating that
the reason for his non-appearance was because he was still
recuperating from physical injuries and that he was not mentally fit
to prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle was rained with
bullets on 19 August 2003. He also expressed12
his public apology to
the complainant in the same Manifestation.
Complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to
appear on the next hearing date in view of respondent’s public
apology, adding that respondent13 personally and humbly asked for
forgiveness which she accepted.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent
be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for 14
breach of
his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. The IBP

_______________

11 TSN, 25 September 2005, p. 11; Rollo, p. 105. See also Order dated 25
September 2003, Id., at p. 94.
12 Id., at p. 107.
13 Id., at p. 111.
14 The Report and Recommendation was filed with the IBP by the Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. Id., at pp. 115-117.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 7

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and 15

approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not the
counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. Had he been counsel of
record, it would have been easy for him to present the required
certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need
not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the
decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their
counsel of record a duplicate original or certified true copy of its
decision.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case
when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being no
authorization from either the parties to represent them, respondent
had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

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.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the

records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached
upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does
not matter whether he did so in good faith.
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to
Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an officer of
the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her
the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also
unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in
front of her subordinates. 16
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have
realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down

_______________

15 Id., at p. 114.
16 441 Phil. 514; 393 SCRA 247 (2002).

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

the legal
17
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01, to wit:

Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on
his fitness to practice law, now shall he, whether in public or private life
behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
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 8.01—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

demands that lawyers 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 towards each other 18
and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times.
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner,
respondent did not categorically deny the charges in the complaint.
Instead, he gave a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case
as well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit that
respondent’s uncharacteristic behavior was not an isolated incident.
He has supposedly done the same to Attys. Abraham Johnny G.
Asuncion and Temmy Lambino, the latter 19 having filed a case against
respondent pending before this Court. We, however, cannot
acknowledge such allegation absent any evidence showing the
veracity of such claim. No affidavits to that effect were submitted by
either Atty. Asuncion or Atty. Lambino.
_______________

17 Id., at p. 520; p. 251.

18 Id., at p. 519; p. 250, citing De Ere v. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617 (1999).
19 Id., at p. 3.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 9

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to

the fact that respondent had apologized to the complainant and the
latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent
should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for
the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent
afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and
words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the
consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the
esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased,
perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born
of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates
solely from integrity, character, brains
20
and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby
FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS
with a warning that any similar infraction with be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant
for appropriate annotation in the record of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr.,

JJ.,concur.
     Chico-Nazario, J.,On Leave.

Respondent meted with P10,000.00 fine, with warning against

repetition of similar infraction.

Note.—A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,

whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. (Calub
vs. Suller, 323 SCRA 556 [2000])

——o0o——

_______________
 20 Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 107; 405 SCRA 212, 219 (2003)
citing AGPALO, LEGAL ETHICS (1989), p. 95.

10

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.