LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ALS2014B JUSTICE HOFILENA

 
05 - Alawi v. Alauya (1997) (attorney v. counsellor)
Doctrines:
• The term “attorney” is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. It cannot be used by those who only took
and passed the Shari”a Bar.
• Public officials and employees must, at all times, respect the rights of others and refrain from doing any acts
contrary to law, good morals, public policy, good customs, and public order.
Facts:
Alawi and Alauya were high school classmates and were friends. However, Alauya, the Executive Clerk of Court
from the 4th District Shari”a District of Marawi City alleged that Alawi obtained his signature on a blank piece of paper
through fraud and gross misrepresentation. He alleges that Alawi used this to make it look as if he was buying a house
from Villarosa & Co., where Alawi worked as a real estate sales agent. Moreover, because of that same transaction,
Alauya was able to receive a loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, also without his consent.
Because of this, he sent strongly-worded letters to the president and VP of Villarosa, as well as to the NHMFC,
detailing in acerbic language Alawi”s supposed fraudulent and deceitful acts. One of the letters, though sent by
mail, did not have any postage stamp. Instead, the phrase “Free Postage — PD 26” was typewritten in the upper
right corner. In all of these letters, Alauya referred to himself as “Attorney Ashary M. Alauya.”
Because of the letters, Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya before the SC, alleging that he imputed malicious
and libelous charges against her w/ no solid ground, that he used the franking privilege given to the judiciary without
authority, and that he usurped the title “attorney”. According to Alauya, his reactions were merely normal from someone
who was distraught and has been victimized of fraud. He says that the word “Attorney” is synonymous with “Counsellor-
at-law” or “Counsellor”, which is the title reserved for those who pass the Shari”a Bar. Alauya says that he prefers
“attorney” because most mistake “counselor” for “councilor” or konsehal. With regard to the alleged improper use of the
free postage service, Alauya says that he actually gave a subordinate P20 to mail the letters, and that to the best of his
knowledge, the letters were sent using that money. This was supported by an affidavit of one of his subordinates.
Issues:
1. W/N the Alauya”s actions violated his duties as a public officer
2. W/N his use of the title “Attorney” was valid
3. W/N the his use of the franking privilege was valid
Held/Ratio:
1. YES, public officers are always expected to act with proper decorum. As a member of the Shari”a Bar and an
officer of the Court, Alauya is impressed with an even stricter and more stringent standard of conduct. Righteous
indignation or vindication does not allow one to use virulent or insulting language, most especially name-calling.
As a man of the law, he is expected to act with restraint and dignity. While his actions may be mitigated, they
cannot be excused.
2. NO, the title “attorney” is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. While both Shari”a Bar and Philippine
Bar passers are considered “counsellors”, if one only took and subsequently passed the Shari”a Bar, he is still not
entitled to use the title “attorney”.
3. The Court did not decide on this matter citing lack of evidence. In the end, the Court reprimanded Alauya for his
actions.

 
ALS2014B 6  of  176  
sof