Rule 11.03. The Proper Language and
Barandon filed
Behavior
Atty. Bonifacio Barandon v. Atty. Edwin
Ferrer, Sr.
Facts:
Complainant Atty. Barandon filed a
complaint-affidavit seeking disbarment,
suspension from practice of law against
respondent Atty. Ferrer, Sr.:
1) 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) At the courtroom, 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;
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.
against him.
Issue: WON Atty. Edwin Ferrer is guilty of
violation of Rule 11 of CPR.
Court:
Yes. The Court ORDERS the suspension of
Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice
of law for one (1) year.
Rationale:
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.
Though a lawyer’s 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. 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.
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. Atty.
Ferrer’s 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.
Johnny Ng v. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar
Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by
Johnny Ng against respondent. He alleges
that he is one of the respondents in a labor
case at NLRC and respondent is the
counsel for the complainant. The La
dismissed the complaint. The NLRC
affirmed the decision of LA.
Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit
(MRMI):
“ xxx Commissioner Dinopol by his decision
under consideration (as ponente [of] the
decision that he signed and caused his co-
commissioners in the First Division to sign)
has shown great and irreparable
impartiality, grave abuse of discretion and
ignorance of the law. He is a shame to the
NLRC and should not be allowed to have
anything to do with the instant case
anymore… xxx”
Respondent Alar: contends that the instant
complaint only intends to harass him and to
influence the result of the cases between
complainant and the workers in the
different fora where they are pending; that
the Rules of Court/Code of Professional
Responsibility does not apply to lawyers
practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being
a court; that LAs and NLRC Commissioners
are not judges nor justices and the Code of
Judicial Conduct similarly do not apply to
them, not being part of the judiciary; and
that the labor lawyers who are honestly and
conscientiously practicing before the NLRC
and get paid on a contingent basis are
entitled to some latitude of righteous anger
when they get cheated in their cases by
reason of corruption and collusion by the
cheats from the other sectors who make
their lives and the lives of their constituents
miserable, with impunity, unlike lawyers for
the employers who get paid, win or lose,
and therefore have no reason to feel
aggrieved.
The MRMI contains insults and diatribes
against the NLRC, attacking both its moral
and intellectual integrity, replete with implied
accusations of partiality, impropriety and
lack of diligence. Respondent used
improper and offensive language in his
pleadings that does not admit any
justification.
Issue: WON Atty. Benjamin Alar violated
Rule 11 of CPR.
Court:
Yes. Respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar is
GUILTY of violation of Canons 8 and 11 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00 with STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
Rationale:
It must be remembered that the language
vehicle does not run short of expressions
which are emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating
but not offensive. A lawyer's language
should be forceful but dignified, emphatic
but respectful as befitting an advocate and
in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession. Submitting pleadings containing
countless insults and diatribes against the
NLRC and attacking both its moral and
intellectual integrity, hardly measures to the
sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
The Court held that respondent became
unmindful of the fact that in addressing the
NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member
of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the
law, whose first duty is not to his client but
to the administration of justice and whose
conduct ought to be and must be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics.
The language vehicle does not run short of
expressions, emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating
but not offensive.

The language here in question, respondents

aver, "was the result of overenthusiasm." It
is but to repeat an old idea when we say
that enthusiasm, or even excess of it, is not
really bad. In fact, the one or the other is no
less a virtue, if channeled in the right
direction. However, it must be circumscribed
within the bounds of propriety and with due
regard for the proper place of courts in our
system of government.