Deles vs.

Aragona
A.M. No. 598, March 28, 1969 (27 SCRA 633)

FACTS:
Aurora Soriano Deles (the complainant) is the administratrix of the intestate
estate of the late Joaquina Ganzon in special proceeding 128 of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo. On July 26, 1961, the intestate court issued an order denying a
proposed lease of ten hectares of the estate by the complainant to one Carlos Fuentes
and sustaining the possession of Enrique as lessee of the said land. In effect, the order
likewise sustained the possession by the brothers Federico and Carlos Aglinao of a
portion of the said land being tenanted by them upon the authority of the lessee,
Enrique Soriano, Sr.

The complainant attempted to take possession of the landholdings by placing

thereon her tenants. Predictably, the Aglinao brothers, to protect their rights, countered
by filing against the complainant two petitions with the Court of Agrarian Relations in
Iloilo. On June 18, 1962, the complainant's men entered the land in question and planted
rice thereon. This unauthorized entry prompted the Aglinao brothers, through their
counsel, the respondent Atty. Vicente Aragona, Jr., to file an "Urgent Motion for
Issuance of Interlocutory Order."

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Aragona should be disciplined or disbarred for having
prepared and filed under oath the said motion.

HELD/RULING:
No. In People v. Aquino the Court laid down the decisional authority that,
"Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged–that is,
privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice–if the same is
relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the injury. And that, in
view of this, the person who makes them–such as a judge, lawyer, or witness–does not
incur the risk of being found liable thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the
recovery of absolute damages." Even when the statements found to be false, if there is
probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge made is in good faith, the
mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. The ultimate test is
that of bona fides. The actuation of Atty. Aragano was motivated by the legitimate
desire to serve the interests of his clients — Mrs. Soriano informed Atty. Aragano of the
incident, coupled with Deles' admissions.