NUEZCA vs.

VILLAGARCIA
A.C. No. 8210 August 08, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS: On February 15, 2009, respondent Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia sent

complainants Manolo and Milinia Nuezca a demand letter which allegedly
contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Complainants
claimed that the demand letter, copy furnished to various offices and persons
and attached with several news clippings, seriously maligned and ridiculed the
complainants to its recipients causing them sleepless nights, wounded feelings,
and besmirched reputation.
On July 22, 2009, the Court issued a resolution directing the respondent to file
his comment to the verified complaint. For failure to serve the aforesaid
resolution to the respondent from the given address by the IBP and from the
Court’s directive to the complainants to furnish the Court the complete and
correct address of the respondent, the Court thus resolved to refer the case to
the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The complainants,
however, failed to appear for the scheduled mandatory hearings and likewise,
the notices sent to respondent were returned unserved.
On May 29, 2015, the IBP-CBD through Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor
recommended that the respondent be: a) suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three months for violation of Rule 8.01 of the CPR, and b) declared in
contempt of court and fined the amount of P1,000.00, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. On
June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution to adopt and
approve with modification the May 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation of the
IBP – CBD by suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six
months and deleting the fine imposed on him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based

on the allegations of the verified complaint.

RULING: The demand letter that respondent sent to complainants contained

not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary obligations to
respondent’s client, but also used words that maligned their character and even
imputed crimes against them. Respondent’s use of demeaning and immoderate
language put complainants in shame and disgrace. It also bears noting that
respondent failed to answer the verified complaint and attend the mandatory
hearings set by the IBP.
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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of
violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month,
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 BALBURIAS vs. FRANCISCO
A.C. No. 10631 July 27, 2016
CARPIO, J.

FACTS: The complainant alleged in his complaint that he filed a criminal case
against his former employee, Rosalyn A. Azogue, before the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City for stealing his company’s funds. Azogue, in turn, filed a labor
case against him. The respondent represented Azoque in the labor case.
In one of the hearings of the labor case, it was alleged that Atty. Francisco
approached the respondent, contemptuously and boastfully telling him “kaya ka
naming bayaran” in front of a lot of people. Shocked by Atty. Francisco’s
unprofessional behavior, he asked her “ kaya mo akong bayaran?” to which she
replied “kaya kitang bayaran sa halaga ng complaint mo.” Balburias claimed he
was embarrassed by the treatment and told her, " kahit isang pera lang ang
halaga ng buhay ko, hindi ako magpapabayad sa iyo ." The incident prompted
him to file the complaint against Atty. Francisco.
In the respondent’s Comment, she alleged that Balburias must be referring to
the incident that happened after their mediation conference. During that period,
Atty. Francisco was accompanied by Atty. Arnold D. Naval. Atty. Naval
approached Balburias and his counsel, Atty. Antonio Abad to open talks for a
possible settlement. Atty. Naval asked Balburias, " puwede ho ba noting ayusin
ito?" Balburias answered "kaya nyo bang bayaran ang nawala sa akin? " and
Atty. Naval replied, "kaya naming bayaran." Atty. Francisco thought that
Balburias was referring to the possible settlement and she was surprised to hear
him say in a high tone, " kaya nyo bang bayaran x x x kaya n 'yo bang bayaran x
x x ang nawala sa akin? Di nyo mababayaran ng kahit anong halaga ang nawala
sa akin! Saksi ang Diyos." When Atty. Naval realized that Balburias might have
misinterpreted him, he tried to pacify him, saying "kaya naming bayaran ang
halaga ng nasa complaint n 'yo. " Atty. Francisco stated that after that, they had
a long cordial discussion at the hallway and later, at the cafeteria of the
Bookman Building to straighten up the misunderstanding. The respondent
insisted that she had no intention to embarrass Balburias.
After the mandatory conference and hearing, Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita
III found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Atty. Francisco
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors
dismissed the complaint and denied Balburias’ motion for reconsideration,
prompting Balburias to file the present petition for review before this court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors committed a reversible error
in adopting the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Abelita and in
dismissing the complaint against Atty. Francisco.

RULING: Delos Santos's affidavit showed that Atty. Francisco immediately

corrected herself when she realized that she might have offended Balburias by
saying that she was referring to the amount of the complaint. We gathered the
same impression from the affidavits of Aquino and Atty. Villanueva. We rule that
Balburias failed to satisfactorily show that Atty. Francisco acted in bad faith.
Nevertheless, we deem it proper to admonish Atty. Francisco to be more careful
in dealing with other litigants to avoid a repetition of a similar incident in the
future. Atty. Francisco could have avoided the incident if she at least tried to talk
to Balburias's counsel on the matter of amicable settlement of the criminal case
instead of talking to Balburias himself. Balburias misinterpreted the approach as
an attempt to "buy her opponents."
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We DISMISS the complaint filed by Ernesto
B. Balburias against Atty. Amor Mia J. Francisco. We ADMONISH Atty. Francisco
to be more circumspect in her actions and to be more courteous in dealing with
litigants in the future.
 BACATAN vs. DADULA
A.C. No. 10565 September 07, 2016
JARDELEZA, J.

FACTS: Between September and October 2007, the following cases were raffled
to Prosecutor Rhodna A. Bacatan for preliminary investigation: (1) a complaint
for libel filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr. and (2)
a complaint for falsification filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey
Bernaldez. Pros. Bacatan found probable cause for the libel case while the
falsification case was recommended for dismissal.
Atty. Merari D. Dadula, the counsel of Carlito Impas, Jr., accused Pros. Bacatan
of manifest partiality and bias against her client noticing the obvious disparity in
her treatment of the two cases, pointing out how the libel case was quickly
resolved while the falsification was delayed. Respondent then concluded that the
prosecutor must have been bribed.
Complainant, in her Comment, denied the allegations of bias stating that the two
cases were raffled on different dates and received by her office on separate
dates. The libel case was raffled first and since she adopts a first-in-first-out
policy, it was resolved prior to the falsification case. She further claimed that she
did not sit on the falsification case or acted with undue haste in the libel case,
but merely followed the procedure in resolving cases at the Cebu City
Prosecutor’s Office.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda found that respondent failed
to abide by the bounds of courtesy, fairness and candor as provided in Canon 8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also observed however, that
respondent was, "a comparatively new member of the profession," and reminded
her "to be a bit more circumspect in her choice of words in championing the
cause of her client." The Commissioner recommended that respondent be
"strongly reprimanded, with warning that a similar or any other future infraction
of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall be dealt with more severely."
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2013-
216, adopting and approving Commissioner Almeyda's Report and
Recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING: Yes. While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is

desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is
disfavoured. When without proof nor enough basis on record, respondent swiftly
concluded, based only on gut feeling, that the complainant has been bribed or
had acted for a valuable consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds
of courtesy, fairness and candor.
ACCORDINGLY, we find respondent Atty. Merari D. Dadula GUILTY of violation of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is imposed a FINE of
P2,000.00 with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
 A.C. No. 7045 September 05, 2016

THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE represented by its

founding partner, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, respondents.
SERENO, C.J.

FACTS: In the criminal case for libel then pending against Eliseo F. Soriano,
complainant acted as the private legal counsel of the accused while respondents
represented the private complainant.
On October 11, 2005, lawyers from complainant law firm, led by Atty. Chavez,
appeared before the court to seek cancellation of arraignment of the criminal
case as their party filed Petition for Review before DOJ a day before the hearing.
Citing the filing of Petition for Review, Atty. Chavez moved for suspension of the
arraignment for a period of 60 days pursuant to Rule 116 Section 11 of Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure. RTC, however, denied the motion and proceeded to
Soriano’s arraignment. Atty. Chavez filed Motion for Inhibition for presiding
Judge of the criminal case on the grounds that the judge was biased against its
client.
On November 11, 2005, the respondents filed a vehement opposition for
inhibition and instead alleged the complainant of antedating the petition for
review. A counter complaint-affidavit was filed by Atty Chavez’s party attaching a
copy of the petition review motion bearing DOJ stamp and sought disbarment
complaint against the respondents.
The respondents, in their Comment dated May 4, 2006, alleged that the filing of
the disbarment complaint against them was a mere harassment tactic and cited
the non-inclusion of another signatory to the Vehement Opposition, Public
Prosecutor Nadine Jaban-Fama, as a respondent in the Complaint. They also
contended that the statements they had made in their pleadings were covered
by the doctrine of privileged communication.
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco, in his Report and Recommendation dated July
7, 2008, found respondents guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said
Report and Recommendation. The respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.
On March 22, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-
146 granting respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and recommending the
dismissal of the instant case on the basis of complainant's failure to implead an
indispensable party.
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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents merit disbarment for violating Canons 8
and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: The court resolves to SET ASIDE Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 of the
IBP Board of Governors. Needless to state, the Court will not look with favor
upon a recommendation based entirely on technical and procedural grounds. We
cannot countenance the dismissal of the case against respondents merely
because the public prosecutor has not been joined as a party. We emphasize
that in disbarment proceedings, the Court merely calls upon members of the bar
to account for their actuations as officers of the Court. 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.
Respondents' 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. 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.
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. Thus, the Court finds respondents guilty of violating Canons 8
and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive language does not
merit the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Nonetheless, Attys. Restituto Lazaro
and Rodel Morta are hereby ADMONISHED to use only respectful and temperate
language in the preparation of pleadings and to be more circumspect in dealing
with their professional colleagues. They are likewise STERNLY WARNED that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.