THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12110. March 11, 2019.]

[Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4149]

GERLIE MATA , petitioner, vs. ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
March 11, 2019 , which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12110 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4149] (Gerlie Mata v. Atty.
William N. Mirano) . — The case arose from a letter-complaint 1 led by Caryl Anne S.
Diamante-Depositario, on behalf of complainant Gerlie Mata, against Atty. William N.
Mirano for disbarment and/or suspension before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint alleged that Atty. Mirano
displayed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer while inside the courtroom.
Complainant is a social worker of ABS-CBN Lingkod Kapamilya Foundation, Inc.-
Bantay Bata 163 Negros. The purpose of Bantay Bata 163 is to provide holistic
services to children who are victims of abuse, as well as indigent children who are in
need of medical assistance.
Atty. Mirano is the counsel for Robert Turley in a rape case filed against the latter.
He is also the counsel for the spouses Robert and Gigi Turley in a complaint for
damages led against complainant, her companion Diamante-Depositario, and another
reporter for a local tabloid who was with them. The said complaint was led due to the
publishing of the service of warrant of arrest against Robert which caused the case to
become unduly sensationalized.
In her A davit, 2 complainant alleged that on January 9, 2014, during the hearing
of the case for two (2) counts of rape against Robert, Atty. Mirano asked Charity Sy, the
court interpreter, regarding the identity of the complainant, the one assisting the child
victim. Charity replied that complainant is from Bantay Bata 163. Atty. Mirano then told
complainant, to quote, "'I'm warning you, indi niyo pag i-media ang kaso' (I'm warning
you, don't bring this case to the media) and 'Tanan nga nag imbestigar sa kaso
madalahig' (all those who are involved in the investigation of the case will be
implicated)," while pointing his index nger at the face of the complainant. Hence, the
filing of the instant disbarment and/or suspension complaint.
Atty. Mirano, in his Answer, 3 contended that there was no legal and factual basis
for the complaint. On the said occasion, Atty. Mirano averred that in order to protect his
client, he merely told the complainant in a normal voice to keep the proceeding
con dential, including the identity of the accused, otherwise she could be prosecuted
criminally for the undue publicity. ASEcHI

On June 22, 2015, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline dismissed the case for
being moot and academic. 4 The Commissioner found that there was grave error on the
part of the respondent when he uttered, "'I'm warning you, indi niyo pag i-media ang
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 kaso' (I'm warning you, don't bring this case to the media) and 'Tanan nga nag
imbestigar sa kaso madalahig' (all those who are involved in the investigation of the
case will be implicated)[.]" 5 The Commissioner observed, however, that during the said
hearing on January 9, 2014, the scal in court manifested the incident and right there
and then, the judge hearing the case admonished Atty. Mirano. Hence, the act
complained of has already been addressed in open court. 6
However, on June 30, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution, 7 to
wit:
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", considering
Respondent's unbecoming conduct inside the courtroom. Thus, Atty. William N.
Mirano is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year .
(Emphasis in the original.)
Both the complainant and Atty. Mirano led their respective Motions for
Reconsideration.
On January 26, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution, 8 resolved to
grant the motion for reconsideration. It reversed the earlier decision and adopted the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case.

The Court's Ruling

The Court deems it proper to deviate from the ndings and recommendation of
the IBP Board of Governors to dismiss the instant case.
The Court has repeatedly stressed that all lawyers should take heed that they are
licensed o cers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession and the integrity of the judicial institution to which they owe delity
according to the oath they have taken; hence, they must conduct themselves honorably
and fairly in all circumstances. 9
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Extended Resolution, 1 0 pointed out that in
administrative complaints for disbarment and suspension of lawyers, the required
quantum of proof is clear and preponderant evidence. It noted that, although
complainant presented the a davit of Charity to substantiate her claim of unbecoming
conduct of Atty. Mirano, Charity merely stated that she heard that Atty. Mirano uttered
some words against complainant, but such words were not clear. From the foregoing,
the IBP concluded that complainant failed to adduce clear and preponderant evidence
to reverse the presumption accorded to Atty. Mirano as a member of the Bar and,
hence, recommended the case to be dismissed.
We disagree.
It bears emphasis that from the records of the case, during the hearing on the
service of warrant of arrest against Robert, the scal manifested the alleged incident in
court wherein the judge hearing the case admonished Atty. Mirano. The transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the hearing shows the following:
FISCAL MA. THERESA B. DITCHING:
  But before we end this proceeding, Your Honor, may I just
manifest something? Because earlier I was informed before the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 start of this hearing by G[e]rlie of Bantay Bata that the defense
counsel approached her in a threatening gesture warning her not
to act on something if the counsel. . .
COURT:
  There is Atty. Mirano, I think those are matter. . .
FISCAL MA. THERESA B. DITCHING:
  I am manifesting to the Honorable Court, the information relayed
by G[e]rlie from Bantay Bata early this morning before the hearing
start[ed], that the defense counsel approached her in a warning
manner, threatening her and as a matter of fact she was in teary
eyes while she was telling me at that time. She went here just for
herself, Your Honor .
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
  Atty. Mirano what do you say to that? ITAaHc

ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO:

  I was telling her do not make a media hype out of this case because this is
confidential. This is confidential.
COURT:
  Is that what he told you?
G[E]RLIE MATA:
  I am warning you! He said, Judge.
ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO:
  Yes.
G[E]RLIE [MATA]:
  He said, I am warning you! Don't say anything to the media and
to anyone who is investigating this otherwise they will be
involved in the investigation .
COURT:
  I admonish Atty. Mirano not to approach G[e]rlie again or
[anyone] connected with the prosecution .
ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO:
  Sorry, Your Honor.
COURT:
  Not to approach any of the persons involved in the prosecution of
this case so that you would not be misinterpreted. I prohibit you
to do that and as an o cer of the court and as a gentleman[,] I
expect you to behave as a gentleman .
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
  I think, Atty. Mirano, did you really want to threaten her?
ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
   No, Your Honor.
G[E]RLIE MATA:
  No Judge, he pointed his finger very near my face (ginturisok) .
ATTY. WILLIAM N. MIRANO:
  No, no, I just told her. . .
G[E]RLIE MATA:
    No, he really pointed his nger very near my face. Cha (referring to the
Court interpreter) witnessed the whole incident.
COURT:
  All right.
FISCAL MA. THERESA B. DITCHING:
    That is why Your Honor I would just like to remind that our duty as a
lawyer is really to be an officer first and foremost we want that on record.
COURT:
  Yes, the Court is already aware of that, and she is already informed of that
and I expect that it would not be repeated. Sometimes you know Atty.
Mirano in his zeal in defending his client, forgets himself. But please do
not allow it to destroy your personality as a gentleman and as an o cer of
the court, I expect that from you. 1 1 (Emphases supplied.)
Corollarily, the Court addressed that indeed Atty. Mirano had failed to observe
the propriety required of him as a member of the Bar. Furthermore, Chapter II, Canon 7,
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely re ects on his
tness to practice law, nor shall he[,] whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CHTAIc

Atty. Mirano lamented that he merely approached complainant for he is

upholding his client's cause and that he is merely protecting the con dentiality of the
said rape case. His contention deserves scant consideration.
Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer,
even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. 1 2
As much as possible, words which undermine the integrity, competence and ability of
the opposing party, or are otherwise offensive, must be avoided especially if the
message may be delivered in a respectful, yet equally emphatic manner. 1 3 Evidently,
Atty. Mirano acted in an offensive manner when he approached complainant in a
threatening manner by pointing his index nger at her face. Atty. Mirano had, therefore,
violated the afore-quoted rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Time and again, this Court has held that when lawyers, in the performance of their
duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the rights of their clients, but also of
their colleagues, and offends due administration of justice, appropriate disciplinary
measures and proceedings are available, such as reprimand, suspension or even
disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts. 1 4
In ne, the Court nds Atty. Mirano to have clearly and de nitely overstepped the
bounds of propriety as a member of the Bar to which a commensurate penalty is
appropriate. Considering, however, that this is Atty. Mirano's rst offense, the Court
resolves to reprimand him, with admonition to observe a higher degree of delity in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 practice of his profession.
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. William N. Mirano is found GUILTY of violating
Chapter II, Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and meted out
the penalty of REPRIMAND . He is further admonished to observe a higher degree of
delity in the practice of his profession and to bear in mind that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. "

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 4.
2. Id. at 5.

3. Id. at 62-74.
4. Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Binas; id. at
335-338.
5. Supra note 2.

6. Rollo, p. 337.
7.& Id. at 334.
8. Id. at 430-431.

9. Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic v.
Sereno), A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018.
10. Rollo, pp. 438-439.
11. Id. at 51-52.

12. Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora v. Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan, A.C. No. 8208, January 10,
2018.

13. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asalus Corporation, G.R. No. 221590, February 22,
2017, 818 SCRA 543, 559.
14. Id. at 558-559.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com