[A.C. No. 5148.  July 1, 2003]

Atty. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. Atty. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR., respondent.

D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:

Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility.  The bickering and the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals and members of the bar.

The Case

Before us is a Sworn Complaint[1] filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  After the Third Division of this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline resolved to suspend him as follows:

“x x x [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him to the obligation that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.  In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.  In impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as well as the above-quoted Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.”[2]

The Facts

In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu,[3] a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry.  Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the latter had not established a fishball factory.  When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to seek legal assistance.

Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by respondent.  The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998.  The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit.  Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint[4] for estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.[5] On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest[6] against Pan.

Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest. [7] He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.

When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes.  Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the dismissal of the estafa case.  However, the two lawyers failed to reach a settlement.

In his Comment[8] dated January 27, 2000, respondent argued that he had shown no disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884.  He claimed that there was no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it had been instituted only to exact vengeance.  He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation.  Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had resolved to file the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit Counter-Affidavits and Evidence,[9] of the appeal[10] to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings.[11]

On the other hand, complainant was impleaded, because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing the estafa case, which the former knew fully well was baseless.  According to respondent, the irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in the criminal investigation and complainant’s connivance therein were discovered only after the institution of the collection suit.

The Third Division of this Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.[12] Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002 Resolution.[13]

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In her Report and Recommendation,[14] Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and report, averred that complainant and Prosecutor Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884 on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had filed against respondent’s client.  In his Comment, respondent  himself  claimed that  “the reason x x x was x x x the irregularities of the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent damages.”

Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondent’s client was the defendant.  There was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had never participated in the business transactions between Pan and Xu.  Improper and highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted by respondent on the alleged prodding of his client.  Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.

Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and complainant in Civil Case No. 4884.  In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation for his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

This Court’s Ruling

We agree with the IBP’s recommendation.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.[15] Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.  Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.  Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.”

Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this Canon.  Civil Case No. 4884 was for the “collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture.” It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. 

The Amended and Supplemental Complaints[16] alleged the following:

“27.   The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused and failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan due process by violating his rights under the Rules on preliminary investigations; he also falsely made a Certification under oath that preliminary investigation was duly conducted and plaintiff [was] duly informed of the charges against him but did not answer; he maliciously and x x x partially ruled that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null and void;  x x x;

“28.   Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and motion to defer for the valid grounds stated therein deliberately refused to correct his errors and consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an invalid information and warrant of arrest.

“29.   Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless connived with the latter to harass and extort money from plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal prosecution in the manner contrary to law, morals and public policy, resulting to the arrest of said plaintiff and causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]” [17]

We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case.  If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution, they should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies.  Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an information for estafa.

In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the estafa case was filed without basis.  Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally.  As a lawyer, respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies.  Thus, the filing of the civil case had no justification. 

The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction subject of the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client.  His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process.  The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.[18]

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility.  A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren.  Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust and respect.  Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other.  Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, [19] but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to “wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.”

Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.  Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable.  While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.[20] Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just condemnation.  Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.[21]

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their professional brethren.  This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained

by artifice or contrivance.  It is born of sharp contests and thrives despite conflicting interests.  It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable performance of professional duty.[22]

WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED  for two (2) years from the practice of law, effective immediately.

SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.

SECOND DIVISION JOSE C. SABERON,

                                  Complainant, 

   

                     - versus -  

  ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG,

                                    Respondent. 

A.C. No. 6567 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,CARPIO MORALES,TINGA,  VELASCO, JR., andBRION, JJ. Promulgated: April 16, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

D E C I S I O NCARPIO MORALES, J.:  

In a Complaint[1] 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: Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition[2] 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, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an Answer

with Affirmative Defenses[3] 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 Rejoinder[5] to complainant’s Reply. Finding the aforementioned statements to be “totally malicious, viscous [sic] and bereft

of any factual or legal basis,” complainant filed the present complaint. Complainant contends that he filed the Petition before the BSP in the legitimate exercise

of his constitutional right to seek redress of his grievances;  and that respondent, as in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, was fully aware that the loan obtained by his (complainant’s) wife in behalf of “her children” had been paid in full, hence, there was no more reason to continue holding the collaterals. 

 Complainant adds that respondent aided and abetted the infliction of damages upon his

wife and “her children” who were thus deprived of the use of the mortgaged property. In his Comment[6] to the present complaint against him, respondent argues that: (1) there

was “nothing abusive, offensive or otherwise improper” in the way he used the word “blackmail” to characterize the suit against his clients; and (2) when a lawyer files a responsive pleading, he is not in any way aiding or abetting the infliction of damages upon the other party.

 By Resolution of March 16, 2005,[7] the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation dated June 21, 2006,[8]  IBP Investigating

Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa held that the word “blackmail” connotes something sinister and criminal. Unless the person accused thereof is criminally charged with extortion, he added, it would be imprudent, if not offensive, to characterize that person’s act as blackmail.

           Commissioner Funa stressed that a counsel is expected only to present factual arguments and to anchor his case on the legal merits of his client’s claim or defense in line with his duty under Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as follows: 

A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. 

Moreover, he noted that in espousing a client’s cause, respondent should not state his personal belief as to the soundness or justice of his case pursuant to Canon 15[9] of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 The Investigating Commissioner also opined that by using words that were “unnecessary

and irrelevant to the case,” respondent went “overboard and crossed the line” of professional conduct. In view thereof, he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.

 By Resolution No. XVII-2007-036 of January 18, 2007,[10] the IBP Board of Governors

disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack of merit. The Commission on Bar Discipline, by letter of March 26, 2007, transmitted the records

of the case to this Court.[11]

 Complainant appealed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors to this Court via a

petition filed on March 7, 2007, under Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B[12] of the Revised Rules of Court. 

 Complainant challenges the IBP Board of Governor’s Resolution as illegal and void ab

initio for violating the mandatory requirements of Section 12(a) of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court that the same be “reduced to writing, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.”

Finding the ruling of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent is guilty of grave misconduct to be in accordance with the evidence, complainant nevertheless submits that the recommended penalty of suspension should be modified to disbarment.  The offense committed by respondent, he posits, manifests an evil motive and is therefore an infraction involving moral turpitude.

 In 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.

 

Respondent in fact counters that it was complainant himself who had made serious imputations of wrongdoing against his clients – the bank for allegedly being engaged in some illegal activities, and Bonpin for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino.

           Nonetheless, respondent pleads that at the time the allegedly abusive and offensive language was used, he was only two years into the profession, with nary an intention of bringing dishonor to it.  He admits that because of some infelicities of language, he may have stirred up complainant’s indignation for which he asked the latter’s and this Court’s clemency. 

In his Reply,[13] complainant counters that respondent’s Comment reveals the latter’s propensity to deliberately state a falsehood;  and that respondent’s claim that the administrative complaint was a “harassing act,” deducible from the “fact that [it] post-dates a series of suits, none of which has prospered x x x against the same rural bank and its owner,” is bereft of factual basis.

 Complainant goes on to argue that respondent, as counsel for Bonpin, knew of the two

criminal cases he and his wife had filed against Bonpin and, as admitted by respondent, of the criminal charges against him for libel arising from his imputations of blackmail, extortion or robbery against him and his wife. 

 Finally, complainant refuses to accede to respondent’s entreaty for clemency.  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 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which

is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. CANON 11 - 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 11.03 - 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.[14]

 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.[15]   Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.[16] 

 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. [17]  In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.[18] 

 It 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,[19] 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.[21]

 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. In 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. It 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.

 Respecting the assailed Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, indeed only a “Notice

of Resolution” was transmitted to this Court, together with the Records of the case, which Notice simply stated that on January 18, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVII-2007-036 in which it:

 RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.  Upon such Notice, it is evident that there is no compliance with the procedural

requirement that the IBP Board of Governors’ decision shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts or law on which the same is based.  Thus Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:

 SEC. 12.          Review and decision 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.  The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based.  It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

  The above requirement serves a very important function not just to inform the parties of

the reason for the decision as would enable them on appeal to point out and object to the findings with which they are not in agreement, but also to assure the parties that the Board of Governors has reached the judgment through the process of legal reasoning.[24] 

 With regard to complainant’s plea that respondent be disbarred, this Court has

consistently considered disbarment and suspension of an attorney as the most severe forms of disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly proven serious administrative charges.[25]

 Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not

of a grievous character as to merit respondent’s disbarment.  In 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.

 WHEREFORE, complainant’s petition is partly GRANTED. Respondent, Atty.

Fernando T. Larong, is found guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for using intemperate language. He is FINED P2,000 with a stern WARNING 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.

[A. C. No. 5398.  December 3, 2002]

ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO, respondent.

D E C I S I O NMENDOZA, J.:

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.

The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in San Jose, Antique.  He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s 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.  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.”)

Complainant said he was surprised at respondent Pefianco’s outburst and asked him to cool off, but respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani.  Atty. Salvani tried to explain to respondent that it was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of the criminal case could be settled because she was no longer interested in prosecuting the same.  Respondent refused to listen and instead continued to scold Atty. Salvani and the latter’s client.

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 Attorney’s Office.

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.

This caused a commotion in the office.  Atty. Pepin Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the Chief of the Probation Office, tried to pacify respondent Pefianco.  Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take respondent out of the office, but before they could do so, respondent tried to attack complainant and even shouted at him, “Gago ka!” (“You’re stupid!”) Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off respondent’s blow and complainant was not harmed.

Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.

In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman, whose husband had been murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her defense.  He said that he resented the fact that complainant had ordered an employee, Napoleon Labonete, to put a sign outside prohibiting “standbys” from hanging round in the Public Attorney’s Office.

Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Salvani concerning the woman’s case, complainant, with his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorney’s Office.  He claimed that two security guards also came, and complainant ordered them to take respondent out of the office.  Contrary to complainant’s claims, however, respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch him and shout at him, “Gago ka!” (“You’re stupid!”)

Prior to the filing of the present complaint, respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against complainant.  However, the complaint was dismissed by the said office.

The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondent committed the acts alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  The Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him but also to give any explanation for his actions.  For this reason, it recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the future.

We find the recommendation of the IBP 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 complainant’s 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 Responsibility[1] 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]

In this case, respondent’s 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.  Instead 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 Attorney’s 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.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more severely.

SO ORDERED.Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.