FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
On 8 February 2006, the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche (complainant), through its founding partner, Atty. Francisco M. Chavez, filed a Complaint-Affidavit1 before this Court. Complainant sought the disbarment of Attys. Restitute S. Lazaro and Rodel R. Morta (respondents) for violation of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It was alleged that respondents falsely and maliciously accused complainant and its lawyers of antedating a Petition for Review filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October 2005.2chanrobleslaw
A Vehement Opposition to the Motion for InhibitionThe allegation of antedating was reiterated by respondents in a Comment/Opposition to the Accused's Motion for Reconsideration filed with the RTC on 6 December 2006:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
COMES NOW, private complainant, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully states:
- Allegedly, the Presiding Judge exhibited bias, partiality, prejudice and has pre-judged the case against the accused when he proceeded with the arraignment despite the pendency of a petition for review filed with the Department of Justice.
- They alleged that on October 10, 2005, or the day before the scheduled arraignment, they have filed the petition.
- They cited Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, where it is provided that upon motion, the arraignment of the accused shall be suspended when a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending.
- We contemplated over this matter. If indeed the petition was duly filed with the DOJ on October 10, 2005, why is it that the accused did not present a copy of the petition stamped "received" by the DOJ? Why did he not make a manifestation that he forgot to bring a copy? He could have easily convinced the Presiding Judge to suspend the arraignment upon a promise that a copy thereof will be filed with the court in the afternoon of October 11, 2005 or even the following day.
- Thus, we come to the conclusion that the accused was able to antedate the filing or mailing of the petition.13 (Emphases supplied)
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. They forgot that they filed the Petition for Review the day before.14 (Emphasis supplied)In the Complaint-Affidavit it filed with this Court, complainant vehemently denied the allegation of antedating.15 As proof that the Petition for Review was personally filed with the DOJ on 10 October 2005, complainant attached to its Complaint-Affidavit a copy of the Petition bearing the DOJ stamp.16chanrobleslaw
We agree with the complainant that the accusation that they antedated the mailing of the DO.I petition is violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the duty of all lawyers to observe civility and propriety in their pleadings. It was somewhat irresponsible for the respondents to make such an accusation on the basis of pure speculation, considering that they had no proof to support their accusation and did not even make any attempt to verify from the DO.I the date and the manner by which the said petition was filed. Moreover, as held in Asa, we will have to disagree with the respondents argument on privileged communication, the use of offensive language in pleadings filed in the course of judicial proceedings, constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.On 14 August 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391, which adopted and approved Commissioner Limpingco's Report and Recommendation:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x
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.
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta be reprimanded for using improper language in their pleadings with a warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for using improper language in their pleadings Atty. Restituto Lazaro and Atty. Rodel Morta are REPRIMANDED with a Warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryOn 14 November 2008, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 14 August 2008. They argued that the Complaint against them should have been dismissed on the following grounds: (a) complainant's failure to implead the public prosecutor, who must be considered an indispensable party to the case, since the pleading in question could not have been filed without her conformity; (b) as the subject pleadings had been signed by the public prosecutor, their contents enjoyed the presumption of regularity and legality, upon which respondents were entitled to rely; (c) respondents relied in good faith on the review, supervision and direction of the public prosecutor in the filing of the pleading in question; and (d) the statements in the pleading were covered by the doctrine of privileged communication.24 Respondents also contended that Atty. Chavez should be disciplined for the derogatory statements made against them in the pleadings he submitted during the IBP investigation.
RESOLVED to GRANT Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, considering that complainant's non-joinder of an indispensable party makes the presumption that Respondents acted according to regulations and in good faith in the performance of their official duties. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391 dated August 14, 2008 is hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case against Respondents is hereby DISMISSED with stern Warning to be more circumspect.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 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.
The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing against other members of the legal profession. It is the duty of 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 justness of the cause with which they are charged.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryRespondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable. Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof is privileged.43 While lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for privileged statements made in their pleadings, they remain subject to this Court's supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance of their duty as members of the legal profession.44chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
1Rollo, Volume 1, pp. 1-13.
2 Id. at 8-11.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id.
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.
13 Id. 48-49.
14 Id. at 7, 106.
15 Id. at 6-8
16 Id. at 21-38.
17 Id. at 101-115.
18 Id. at 107-108.
19 Id. at 108-109.
20 Id. at 116.
21 Id. (Volume V) at 3-10.
22 Id. at 9-10.
23 Id. at 1-2.
24 Id. at 11-34.
25cralawred 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:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 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 vole 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. The Board shall issue a resolution setting fortli 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 Court for final action within ten (10) days from issuance of the resolution.
28Pena v. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512-526 (2007); In re: Almacen v. Yaptinchay, 142 Phil. 353-393 (1970).
29Ylaya 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).
30Dizon v. De Taza, A.C. No. 7676, 10 June 2014, 726 SCRA 70-83 citing In re: Almacen v. Yaptinchay, 142 Phil. 353-393 (1970).
31Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 481 Phil. 646-660 (2004).
32Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., 538 Phil. 501-517 (2006).
33Pena 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).
34 Id.
35Coronel v. Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738, 12 August 2015.
36Rollo, pp. 101-115.
37 Id. at 105-106.
38 Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCANON 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.
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 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - 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 10.02 - 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 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
40Torres v. Javier, 507 Phil. 397-409 (2005).
41Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, 465 Phil. 1-8 (2004).
42 A.C. No. 6332, 17 April 2012.
43Asa v. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9-28 (2006).
44Lubiano v. Gordolla, 201 Phil. 47-52 (1982).
45 See: Nuñez v. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450-460 (2005).
46 See: Noble III v. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628 (Resolution), 1 July 2015.