In the case of ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR. vs. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR.,
A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010, the Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year. The administrative case concerned a lawyer who was claimed to have hurled invectives upon another lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. Thus:
X x x.
The Court’s Ruling
X x x.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.[1]
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. To quote portions of what he said in his reply with motion to dismiss:
1. That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable misrepresentation and “FALSIFICATION” of documents, committed to mislead this Honorable Court, but with concomitant grave responsibility of counsel for Defendants, for distortion and serious misrepresentation to the court, for presenting a grossly “FALSIFIED” document, in violation of his oath of office as a government employee and as member of the Bar, for the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has never executed the “SALAYSAY AFFIDAVIT”, wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in view whereof, hereby DENY the same including the affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all lies and mere fabrications, sufficient ground for “DISBARMENT” of the one responsible for said falsification and distortions.”[2]
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.[3]
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides:
Rule 7.03. – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present convincing evidence to support his denial of this particular charge. He merely presented a certification from the police that its blotter for the day did not report the threat he supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police blotter on a subsequent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Ferrer.
Atty. Ferrer said, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.” Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The Court cannot countenance it.
Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.[4] Atty. Ferrer 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 Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation.
Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.[5] So long as the parties are given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.[6] Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.[7] Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
X x x.
[1] Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 85, 91.
[2] Rollo, p. 12.
[3] Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 359, 368.
[4] De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals Justices, 454 Phil. 718, 727 (2003).
[5] Batongbakal v. Zafra, 489 Phil. 367, 378 (2005).
[6] Calma v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 297, 304 (1999).
[7] Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 104 (2003).
