A.C. No.

2505 February 21, 1992

EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent.

On 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage.

The parties agreed to keep the marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies and had taken the Bar
examinations allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant admits that they had not lived together as husband and
wife.

Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he declared that he was
"single." He then passed the examinations but Complainant blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No.
78, claiming that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his application and, thus, was unworthy to take the
lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral character.

The Court deferred Respondent's Oath-taking and required him to answer the Complaint.

Respondent admitted that he was "legally married" to Complainant but that the marriage "was not as yet made and declared
public" so that he could proceed with his law studies and until after he could take the Bar examinations "in order to keep
stable our future." He also admitted having indicated that he was "single" in his application to take the Bar "for reason that to
my honest belief, I have still to declare my status as single since my marriage with the complainant was not as yet made and
declared public." He further prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss. Attached to it was Complainant's Affidavit of Desistance, which stated that Bar
Matter No. 78 arose out of a misunderstanding and communication gap and that she was refraining from pursuing her
Complaint against Respondent.

The Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and allowed Respondent to take his Oath

On 14 February 1983, however, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time praying for Respondent's disbarment.
Attached to Complainant's Petition is an undated and unsigned letter addressed to Complainant, allegedly written by
Respondent after he had already taken his Oath stating, among others, that while he was grateful for Complainant's help, he
"could not force myself to be yours," did not love her anymore and considered her only a friend. Their marriage contract was
actually void for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, among them the minimum cohabitation
for five (5) years before the celebration of the marriage, an affidavit to that effect by the solemnizing officer, and that the
parties must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age, which they were not as they were both only twenty years old at the
time. He advised Complainant not to do anything more so as not to put her family name "in shame." As for him, he had
"attain(ed) my goal as a full-pledge (sic) professional and there is nothing you can do for it to take away from me even (sic)
you go to any court."According to Complainant, although the letter was unsigned, Respondent's initials appear on the upper
left-hand corner of the airmail envelope (Exh. "8-A-1").

Respondent denied emphatically that he had sent such a letter contending that it is Complainant who has been indulging in
fantasy and fabrications.

In his Comment in the present case, Respondent avers that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose the
marriage not because he wanted to finish his studies and take the Bar first but for the reason that said marriage was void
from the beginning in the absence of the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code. He could not have abandoned
Complainant because they had never lived together as husband and wife. When he applied for the 1981 Bar examinations, he
honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was single.

On 7 May 1984, the Court referred the Complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On 5 March
1990, the Solicitor General submitted his Report, with the recommendation that Respondent be exonerated from the charges against
him since Complainant failed to attend the hearings and to substantiate her charges but that he be reprimanded for making inconsistent
and conflicting statements in the various pleadings he had filed before this Court.
On 26 March 1990, the Court referred the Solicitor General's Report to the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and
recommendation. In an undated Report, the latter recommended the indefinite suspension of Respondent until the status of his
marriage is settled.
Upon the facts on Record even without testimonial evidence from Complainant, we find Respondent's lack of good moral character
sufficiently established.
Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7. That
false statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits
lack of good moral character.
Respondent can not assume that his marriage to Complainant is void. The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a
marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection
therewith has been regularly performed.
Secondly, Respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions in the various pleadings submitted in Bar Matter No. 78 and in the
case at bar is duplicitous and deplorable.
Again, while in said "Explanation" he admitted having been "legally married" to Complainant (par. 1), in this case, however, he denies
the legality of the marriage and, instead, harps on its being void ab initio. He even denies his signature in the marriage contract.
In Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent also averred that the fact of marriage was not to be made public so as to allow him to finish his
studies and take the Bar. In this case, however, he contends that the reason it was kept a secret was because it was "not in order from
the beginning."
Thirdly, Respondent denies that he had sent the unsigned letter (Annex "F," Petition) to Complainant. However, its very tenor
coincides with the reasons that he advances in his Comment why the marriage is void from the beginning, that is, for failure to comply
with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code.
Fourthly, the factual scenario gathered from the records shows that Respondent had reconciled with Complainant and admitted the
marriage to put a quick finish to Bar Matter No. 78 to enable him to take the lawyer's Oath, which otherwise he would have been
unable to do. But after he had done so and had become a "full-pledge (sic) lawyer," he again refused to honor his marriage to
Complainant.
Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit
himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. Respondent, through his actuations,
has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.
It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Trebonian C. Tabang grossly unfit and unworthy to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders, the
suspension to take effect immediately.

ADM. CASE No. 6595

April 15, 2005

JOSEPH SAMALA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ANTONUITTI K. PALAA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a complaint filed by Joseph Samala against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa for alleged fraudulent activities that violate
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Sometime in February 2001, complainant was looking for a company where he could invest his dollar savings. He met
Raymond Taino, a trader-employee of First Imperial Resources, Inc. (FIRI), a company located at Legaspi Village, Makati
City. Taino introduced him to FIRI Manager Jun Agustin, Chief Trader Diosdado Bernal, and Legal Officer Antonuitti K.
Palaa, the respondent herein.

Complainant expressed his concern to the said three officers of FIRI about having been warned of numerous fraudulent
businesses in the Philippines. Respondent assured him that his investment be put in a reputable company. The three officers
presented to him their company profile and documents.

he invested his dollar savings with FIRI.

Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. On April 5, 2001, he sent FIRI a letter requesting the
withdrawal of his investment amounting to US$10,000 and giving FIRI 10 days to prepare the money.

On April 15, 2001, complainant asked Agustin when his money would be returned. Agustin told him that the request was sent
to Thomas Yiu of Eastern Vanguard at Ortigas Center. Complainant went to see Thomas Yiu at his office. Yiu was surprised
when he saw the documents involving complainant's investment. Yiu phoned Agustin and demanded an explanation as to
where the money was. Agustin said that he would return complainant's investment at FIRI's office in Makati. On the same
day, in the presence of respondent, Agustin delivered to complainant a check in the amount of P574,045.09, as the peso
equivalent of complainant's investment with FIRI. On May 2, 2001, the said check was dishonored because it was DAIF.

Complainant informed respondent of the dishonor of the check. Respondent assured him that the check would be replaced.
On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount
of P329,045.09. Respondent told complainant that the check was signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his
(respondent's) presence and assured complainant that the check would be funded. But on June 28, 2001, the check was
dishonored because it was DAIF.

On July 14, 2001, complainant charged Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 at the
Prosecutor's Office of Makati. On November 4, 2001, Judge Evelyn Arcaya-Chua of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati
City, issued a warrant of arrest against Paul Desiderio.

On March 5, 2002, complainant joined three police officers in serving the warrant of arrest against Paul Desiderio at No. 10
Damascus St., Northeast Executive Village, B.F. Homes, Paraaque City. Complainant got the said address of Paul Desiderio
from the documents of FIRI. Although there was a street named Damascus in the said village, there was no residence
numbered "10." The police officers checked the existence of the said address and resident at the office of the subdivision
association. They were told that no such address existed and that no resident named Paul Desiderio lived in the subdivision.

Complainant alleged that respondent's act of representing himself to be the legal officer of FIRI and his assurance that the
check he personally delivered to him was signed in his presence by FIRI Officer Paul Desiderio, when no such person
appears to exist, is clearly fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics. 1

Complainant requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for a thorough investigation of respondent as a member of the
bar.

In an Order dated January 27, 2003, Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez required respondent to submit his
Answer to the Complaint within 15 days but respondent did not submit an Answer.

The case was referred to Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation.
Respondent failed to appear when the case was set for hearing on April 8, 2003, despite due notice. Hence, respondent was
declared in default and the case was heard ex parte.

Respondent was found to have violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:
Commissioner Navarro thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In its Resolution dated July 30, 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner with the modification that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for three (3)
years.
This Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.3 To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. 4
In this case, respondent assured complainant that by investing his dollar savings with FIRI, his investment was in a stable company,
even if, as it was later discovered, the by-laws of FIRI prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange business and its
primary purpose is "to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on."
Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused material damage to complainant. In so doing,
respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the public in the honesty
and integrity of the same.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution,
with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 5768

March 26, 2010

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:

This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon another lawyer and filed a baseless suit
against him.
The Facts and the Case
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit1 with the (IBP-CBD) seeking the
disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z.
Ferrer, Sr. for the following offenses:
1. Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiffs counsel in Civil Case, filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive,
offensive, and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged falsification of public document
when the document allegedly falsified was a notarized document executed on February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty.
Barandon was not yet a lawyer nor was assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a signatory to the document.
3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer,
evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, "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."
4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document without bothering to check the copy with the Office of
the Clerk of Court and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed to consider that a notarized document is presumed to be
genuine and authentic until proven otherwise.
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment
charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. In October 2000, Atty.
Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with the Commission on Settlement of
Land Problems, Department of Justice. When Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with
inflammatory language.
Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses in his answer with motion to dismiss:
1. Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for examination, Atty. Barandon filed charges of libel and grave
threats against him. These charges came about because Atty. Ferrers clients filed a case for falsification of public document
against Atty. Barandon.
2. The offended party in the falsification case, Imelda Palatolon, vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the waiver document had
been falsified.
3. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks against Atty. Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in
session. It was improbable that the court did not take steps to stop, admonish, or cite Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt for his
behavior.
4. Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that Atty. Ferrer was drunk on December 19, 2000 and
that he degraded the law profession. The latter had received various citations that speak well of his character.
5. The cases of libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against Atty. Ferrer were still pending. Their mere filing did
not make the latter guilty of the charges. Atty. Barandon was forum shopping when he filed this disbarment case since it
referred to the same libel and grave threats subject of the criminal cases.

In his reply affidavit,2 Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for disbarment. He alleged that on December 29, 2000 at about 1:30
p.m., while Atty. Ferrer was on board his sons taxi, it figured in a collision with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles
passengers.3 But neither Atty. Ferrer nor any of his co-passengers helped the victims and, during the police investigation, he denied
knowing the taxi driver and blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from reporting the
accident to the authorities.4
Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had already been dismissed. He belittled the citations Atty. Ferrer
allegedly received. On the contrary, in its Resolution 00-1,5 the IBP-Camarines Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as
judge of the MTC of Mercedes, Camarines Sur, on the ground that he did not have "the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry
and character of a trial judge" and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of lasciviousness and a disbarment case filed by an
employee of the same IBP chapter.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report,
recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to
prove Atty. Ferrers violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as
counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the document had in fact
been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the
threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing.
On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XV-2002-225,6 adopting and approving the Investigating
Commissioners recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.
Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in its Resolution 7 of October 19, 2002 on the ground that it had
already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2003, however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for
resolution of Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration.8 On May 22, 2008 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner that denied Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration. 10
On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of Governors IBP Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008.11 On August
12, 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty. Ferrers comment as a petition for review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Atty. Barandon filed his comment,12 reiterating his arguments before the IBP. Further, he presented certified copies of orders issued by
courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer against appearing in court drunk. 13
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty.
Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.
The Courts Ruling
We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors and the Investigating Commissioner.
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.14
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. Ferrers 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.
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal
system.16
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. Ferrers 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 lawyers 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. 17 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.1avvphi1
Contrary to Atty. Ferrers 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 ones defense. 18 So long as the parties
are given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with. 19 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.20 Atty. Ferrers 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.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case 01-809
and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one year effective upon his receipt of this
Decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Ferrers personal record as an attorney with the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy
of the same be served to the IBP and to the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.

EN BANC
[A.C. No. 5148. July 1, 2003]
Atty. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. Atty. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR., respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, 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 lawyers oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The Facts
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu, [3] a ChineseTaiwanese, 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. 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 codefendant 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 Pans 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 complainants 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 respondents 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 respondents 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 commissioners recommendation for his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
This Courts Ruling
We agree with the IBPs 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.
Respondents 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.
We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen complainants
allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. If respondent or his client did not agree with
Prosecutor Salangas 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 Salangas 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 Lawyers 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.