:·<
.
.•:.........;.,.
,,...
. . :.; i.:. {. :
:.. ..
•' - w.L:l.-·--,
':,'
.! ·,
..
"•rr:t"
:, 1{ ! \
··::-'
FIRST DIVISION
RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ:
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
* On official leave.
1
Rollo, Volume I, pp. 1-13.
2
Id. at 8-11.
;r
3
Id. at 2.
Resolution 2 A.C. No. 7045
4
Id.
5
Id. at 4.
6
ld.
7
Id. at 4-5.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 5.
10
Id. at 42.
11
Id. at 39-47.
12
Id. at 48-56.
Resolution 3 A.C. No. 7045
4. It is our conclusion that the accused and his lawyers were able to
antedate the filing or mailing of the petition. We cannot conclude
otherwise, unless the accused and his battery of lawyers will admit that on
October 11, 2005 that they suddenly or temporarily became amnesiacs.
14
They forgot that they filed the Petition for Review the day before.
(Emphasis supplied)
n Id. 48-49
14
Id. at 7, I 06.
15
Id. at 6-8
16
Id. at 21-38.
17
Id. at 101-115.
18
Id. at 107-108
19
Id. at I 08-109.
Resolution 4 A.C. No. 7045
21
In his Report and Recommendation dated 7 July 2008,
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility:
xx xx
In Asa, the Supreme Court found Atty. Ginger Anne Castillo guilty
of breach of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
admonished her to refrain from using offensive and improper language in
her pleadings. Considering that the respondents' accusation that the
complainant and its lawyers antedated the mailing of Bro. Eliseo Soriano 's
DOJ Petition is somewhat more serious than an allegation of wanting
additional attorney's fees for opening doors and serving coffee. we believe
that the penalty of reprimand would be proper in this case.
20
Id. at 116.
21
Id. (Volume V) at 3-10.
22
Id. at 9-10.
(
Resolution 5 A.C. No. 7045
To date, this Court has not received any petition from complainant or
any other interested party questioning Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 of the
IBP Board of Governors. However, pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645, 26 we must
ultimately decide disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar,
regardless of the acts of the complainant. 27 This rule is consistent with our
23
Id. at 1-2.
24
Id. at 11-34.
25
Id. at 43-57.
26
Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B, 13 October 2015.
27
Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 states:
Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors
upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.
b) After its review, the Board. by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall
recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of
disciplinary action against the respondent.
/
Resolution 6 A.C. No. 7045
obligation to preserve the purity of the legal profession and ensure the
proper and honest administration of justice. 28 In accordance with this duty,
we now pass upon the recommendation of the IBP.
OUR RULING
cont.
The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations. clearly
and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the
next meeting of the Board following the submission of the Investigator's report.
c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and
submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Couri for final action within ten (I 0) days
from issuance of the resolution.
28
Pena v. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512-526 (2007); /11 re: Almacen v. Yaptinchay, 142 Phil. 353-393 ( 1970).
29
Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, 30 January 2013. 689 SCRA 452-483; Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, 534 Phil.
471-484 (2006); Cojuangco, .Jr. v. Palma, 481 Phil. 646-660 (2004).
:io Dizon v. De Taza, A.C. No. 7676, 10 .lune 2014. 726 SCRA 70-83 citing In re: Almacen v. Yaptinchav.
142 Phil. 353-393 ( 1970).
31
Cojuangco, .Ii'. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 481 Phil. 646-660 (2004).
32
Ferancullo v. Fera.·1cullo, .Jr.. 538 Phil. 501-517 (2006 ).
:i:i Pena v. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512-526 (2007); Gonzalez v. Alcaraz. 534 Phil. 471-484 (2006) citing In re:
Almacen v. Yaptinchay, 142 Phil. 353-393 (1970).
Resolution 7 A.C. No. 7045
34
members of the bar to account for their actuations as officers of the Court.
Consequently, only the lawyer who is the subject of the case is
indispensable. No other party, not even a complainant, is needed. 35
In this case, respondents are only called upon to account for their own
conduct. Specifically, their pleadings contain the accusation that
complainant antedated the filing of a petition before the DOJ. The fact that
Public Prosecutor Jaban-Fama also signified her conformity to the pleadings
containing these statements is irrelevant to the issue of whether respondents'
conduct warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The claim of respondents that they relied in good faith on the approval
of the public prosecutor is likewise untenable. As lawyers, they have a
personal obligation to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility. This
obligation includes the duty to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards their professional colleagues, including opposing
counsel. Respondents cannot disregard this solemn duty solely on the basis
of the signature of a public prosecutor and later seek to absolve themselves
from liability by pleading good faith.
There being no cause for the dismissal of the instant case, the Court
now proceeds to determine whether respondents have indeed violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
this Court, they even reproduced the pertinent portions 37 of their pleadings
that contained the allegations of antedating. Accordingly, the only question
left for us to resolve is whether their conduct violates the ethical code of the
profession. Issue: Whether or not their conduct violates the ethical code of profession
This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and
temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the
40
dignity of the legal profession. Their arguments, whether written or oral,
should be gracious to both the court and the opposing counsel and should
consist only of such words as may be properly addressed by one honorable
member of the bar to another. 41 In this case, respondents twice accused
complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ without any
proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought
complainant and its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to
mislead the courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the
absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes
of strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and
37
Id. at I 05-106.
38
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY.
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES. /\ND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.0 I - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
39
Canon I 0 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 10 -A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule I 0.0 I - 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.
Rule I 0.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule I 0.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
40
Torres v. Javier, 507 Phil. 397-409 (2005).
41
Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, 465 Phil. 1-8 (2004).
Resolution 9 A.C. No. 7045
SO ORDERED.
42
A.C. No. 6332, 17 April 2012.
43
Asa v. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9-28 (2006).
44
lubiano v. Gordolla, 201Phil.47-52 (1982).
45
See: Nufiez v. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450-460 (2005).
46
See: Noble Ill v. Ai.'es, A.C. No. I0628 (Resolution), I July 2015.
Resolution 10 A.C. No. 7045
WE CONCUR: