A.C. No.
8560, September 06, 2016 Complainant also narrated that at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of
CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v.
ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Court's resolution is the Complaint 1 dated March 3, 2010 filed
by complainant Carrie-Anne Shaleen Carlyle S. Reyes (complainant)
against respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva (respondent), praying that
the latter be disbarred for sexually harassing her.
The Facts
Complainant alleged that she has been working at the Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) as an Administrative Aide on a
Job Order basis since October 2004. Sometime in January 2009,
she was reassigned at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary
under the supervision of respondent, who was then acting as CAAP
Acting Board Secretary. During complainant's stint under
respondent, she would notice that during office hours, respondent
would often watch "pampagana" videos saved in his office laptop, all
of which turned out to be pornographic films. Complainant also
averred that whenever respondent got close to her, he would hold
her hand and would sometimes give it a kiss. During these
instances, complainant would remove her hands and tell him to
desist. According to complainant, respondent even offered her a
cellular phone together with the necessary load to serve as means
for their private communication, but she refused the said offer,
insisting that she already has her own cellular phone and does not
need another one.2
April 1, 2009, respondent texted her to wait for him at the office.
Fearing that respondent might take advantage of her, complainant
convinced two (2) of her officemates to accompany her until
respondent arrived. Upon respondent's arrival and seeing that
complainant had companions, he just told complainant and the other
two (2) office staff to lock the door when
they leave.3
Complainant further recounted that on the following day, April 2,
2009, respondent called her on her cellular phone, asked if she
received his text message, and told her he would tell her something
upon his arrival at the office. At about 9:30 in the morning of even
date, respondent asked complainant to encode a memorandum he
was about to dictate. Suddenly, respondent placed his hand on
complainant's waist area near her breast and started caressing the
latter's torso. Complainant immediately moved away from
respondent and told him "sumosobra na ho kayo sir." Instead of
asking for an apology, respondent told complainant he was willing to
give her P2,000.00 a month from his own pocket and even gave her
a note stating "just bet (between) you and me, x x x kahit na si
mommy," referring to complainant's mother who was also working at
CAAP. At around past 11 o'clock in the morning of the same day,
while complainant and respondent were left alone in the office,
respondent suddenly closed the door, grabbed complainant's arm,
and uttered "let's seal it with a kiss," then attempted to kiss
complainant. This prompted complainant to thwart respondent's
advances with her left arm, raised her voice in order to invite help,
and exclaimed "wag naman kayo ganyan sir, yung asawa nyo
magagalit, sir may asawa ako." After respondent let her go,
complainant immediately left the office to ask assistance from her
former supervisor who advised her to file an administrative case 4
against respondent before the CAAP Committee on Decorum and
Investigation (CODI).5

Finally, complainant alleged that after her ordeal with respondent,
she was traumatized and was even diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with recurrent major
depression.6 Eventually, complainant filed the instant complaint.
In his defense,7 respondent denied all of complainant's allegations.
He maintained that as a 79-year old retiree who only took a position
at the CAAP on a consultancy basis, it was very unlikely for him to
do the acts imputed against him, especially in a very small office
space allotted for him and his staff. In this regard, he referred to his
Counter-Affidavit8 submitted before the CODI, wherein he explained,
inter alia, that: (a) while he indeed watches "interesting shows" in his
office laptop, he never invited anyone, including complainant, to
watch with him and that he would even close his laptop whenever
someone comes near him;9 (b) he never held and kissed
complainant's hand because if he had done so, he would have been
easily noticed by complainant's co-staffers;10 (c) he did offer her a
cellular phone, but this was supposed to be an office phone which
should not be used for personal purposes, and thus, could not be
given any sexual meaning;11 (d) he did tell complainant to wait for
him in the afternoon of April 1, 2009, but only for the purpose of
having an available encoder should he need one for any urgent
matter that would arise;12 and (e) he would not do the acts he
allegedly committed on April 2, 2009 as there were other people in
the office and that those people can attest in his favor. 13 Respondent
then pointed out that the administrative case filed against him before
the CODI was already dismissed for lack of basis and that
complainant was only being used by other CAAP employees who
were agitated by the reforms he helped implement upon his
assumption as CAAP consultant and eventually as Acting Corporate
Board Secretary.14
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 15 dated August 14, 2012, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner
recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint
against respondent.16 He found that complainant failed to
substantiate her allegations against respondent, as opposed to
respondent's defenses which are ably supported by evidence. Citing
respondent's evidence, the Investigating Commissioner opined that
since the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary was very small, it is
implausible that a startling occurrence such as an attempted sexual
molestation would not be noticed by not only the other occupants of
said office area, but also by those occupying the office adjacent to it,
i.e., the CAAP Operations Center, which is separated only by glass
panels. Further, the Investigating Commissioner drew attention to the
investigation conducted by the CODI showing that the collective
sworn statements of the witnesses point to the eventual conclusion
that none of the alleged acts of misconduct attributed to respondent
really occurred.17
In a Resolution18 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors
(IBP Board) unanimously reversed the aforesaid Report and
Recommendation. As such, respondent was found guilty of
committing sexual advances, and accordingly, recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.
In view of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, 19 the IBP Board
referred the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD) for study, evaluation, and submission of an Executive
Summary to the IBP Board.20
In the Director's Report 21 dated July 8, 2014, the IBP-CBD National
Director recommended that the current IBP Board adhere to the
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner as it
is supported by the evidence on record; on the other hand, the
reversal made by the previous IBP Board is bereft of any factual and
legal bases, and should therefore, be set aside. In this light, the
current IBP Board issued a Resolution22 dated August 10, 2014
setting aside the previous IBP Board's Resolution, and accordingly,
dismissed the administrative complaint against respondent.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should
be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
The Court's Ruling
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The provision instructs that "[a]s officers of the court, lawyers are
bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but
also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing."23
In similar light, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR states:
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxxx
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is
required to possess. It may be defined as "what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally
entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by the public in
the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective
term but one which corresponds to objective reality." 24 Such
requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect
the public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to protect
prospective clients; and (d) to protect errant lawyers from
themselves.25
In Valdez v. Dabon,26 the Court emphasized that a lawyer's
continued possession of good moral character is a requisite
condition to remain a member of the Bar, viz.:
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court
that possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership
in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's
bounden duty to observe the highest degree of morality
in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity, and the legal
profession exacts from its members nothing less.
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of
the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the
court demand no less than the highest degree of
morality.
The Court explained in Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit that "as
officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact
be of good moral character but must also be seen
to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. A member of the bar and an officer of
the court is not only required to refrain from
 adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but
must also behave himself so as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the impression
that he is flouting those moral standards."
Consequently, any errant behavior of the lawyer, be it
in his public or private activities, which tends to show
deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or
disbarment.27 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Verily, lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not
only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career,
in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.28
After due consideration, the Court reverses the findings and
recommendations of the IBP, and finds respondent administratively
liable for violations of the CPR, as will be explained hereunder.
To recapitulate, the IBP found that as compared to complainant's
purposedly bare and uncorroborated allegations, respondent's
evidence point to the conclusion that none of the alleged sexual
advances made by respondent against complainant actually
occurred. As such, it absolved respondent from any administrative
liability. In support of such finding, the IBP largely relied on the
following: (a) the five (5) photographs29 respondent submitted to the
CODI to show that respondent's office space was so small that any
commotion caused by a sexual harassment attempt would have
been easily noticed by the other occupants thereof; 30 and (b) the
investigation conducted by the CODI per the Transcript 31 submitted
by respondent where the witnesses said that they did not notice
anything out of the ordinary on April 2, 2009, the date when
respondent's alleged sexual advances against complainant were
committed.32 However, the foregoing evidence, taken as a whole, did
not actually refute complainant's allegation that at around past 11
o'clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, respondent closed the door,
grabbed complainant's right arm, uttered the words "let's seal it with
a kiss" and attempted to kiss complainant despite the latter's
resistance.
A careful perusal of the aforesaid Transcript shows that at around
past 11 o'clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, there was a time that
complainant and respondent were indeed left alone in the office:
Mr. Mendoza: Ngayon, puwede mo bang idescribe sa
amin nung 9:30 to 11:00 sinu-sino kayo doon?
Witness 1: Tatlo (3) lang kami sir po dun. Si Ma'am
Carrie Anne [complainant], si sir Nieva [respondent]
tsaka aka po.
Mr. Mendoza: So ikaw lang ang witness, ang taong
naroon 9:30 to 11?
Witness 1: Yes sir.
xxxx
Mr. Mendoza: Saan kayo kumakain ng lunch?
Witness 1: Sa loob po kami naglulunch.
Mr. Mendoza: Pag nag-order ng pagkain minsan may
natitira pa bang iba?
Witness 1: Itong po yung dalawa yung natira nung
umalis po aka. Um... pagbalik ko po wala na po si
Ma'am Caan [complainant] si Ma'am Amy nalang po
ang nandoon.

Mr. Mendoza: So siya [complainant] nalang at tsaka si
Atty. Nieva [respondent] ang naiwan doon sa room?
Eh nasaan na yung ibang OJT pa?
Witness 1: Tatlo lang po kasi kami nun sir, nasa Land
Bank po yung dalawa.
Mr. Mendoza: So nasa Land Bank sila. So totoong may
nangyari na naiwan silang dalawa [complainant and
respondent] na time na silang dalawa lang ang naiwan
sa kuwarto?
Witness 1: Opo nung mga quarter to 12 siguro po nun.
Mr. Mendoza: Ilang beses na may nangyayaring ganun
na silang naiiwan doon sa kuwarto?
Witness 1: Yun lang po kasi yung natatandaan ko po
sir na time na naiwan sila eh.
xxxx
Mr. Abesamis: Umalis ka sa room para bumili ng
pagkain nandoon si Atty. Nieva [respondent]?
Witness 1: Andoon pa po silang dalawa [complainant
and respondent]. Pero tapos na po silang magtype nun
tas nag decide na maglunch na eh.
Mr. Abesamis: Saan? Sino ang naiwan?
Witness 1: Dalawa pa lang sila sir pagbalik ko tatlo na
sila pero wala naman po si Ma'am Caan [complainant].
Nung umalis po ako si sir Nieva [respondent] tsaka si
Ma'am Caan yung nandoon then pagbalik ko po wala
na si Ma'am Caan, si sir Nieva tsaka silang dalawa na
po yung nandoon.
Mr. Abesamis: Ok. So wala na silang kasamang iba?
Witness 1: Opo.33
The same Transcript also reveals that the CODI interviewed the
occupants of the adjacent office, i.e., the CAAP Operations Center,
which, according to the IBP Investigating Commissioner, was only
separated from complainant and respondent's office, i.e. the CAAP
Office of the Board Secretary, by glass panels. Pertinent parts of the
interview read:
Mr. Borja: Nung oras ng mga alas onse (11) pagitan ng
alas onse (11) hanggang alas dose (12), nasaan ka joy
[Witness 4]?
Witness 4: Andun po sa ORCC [CAAP Operations
Center].
Mr. Borja: Si ano naman Donna [Witness 5] ganun din?
Kasi sinasabi dito noong bandang ganung oras past
eleven (11) parang nag-advance yata si Atty. Nieva
[respondent] kay Ms. Reyes (Caan) [complainant]
ngayon nung chinachansingan siya parang ganun ang
dating eh "Iraised up my voice also, so that the OPCEN
personnel will hear of the alarm" may narinig ba kayo
na sumigaw siya?
Witness 4: Eh kasi sir wala pong braket yun yung time
na ano yung RPCC 764 so nag-cocoordinate kami...
Mr. Borja: Ano yung 764?
Witness 4: Yung sa Tuguegarao yung nawawala siya
so may alerfa tapos ditressfa so intransi po kami...
opo...
Mr. Borja: So busing-busy ka sa telepono?
Witness 4: Opo lahat kami.
Mr. Borja: Pati ikaw?
Witness 5: Opo.
Mr. Borja: Sinong walang ginagawa nun?
Witness 4: Wala kasi kanya-kanya kami ng
coordination lahat kami nasa telepono.
Mr. Borja: Kaya kapag kumakalampag yung pader [sa]
kabila hindi niyo maririnig?
Witness 4: Hindi siguro sir kasi kung nakasara din sila
ng pinto tapos kanya-kanya kaming may kausap sa
telepono eh.
Mr. Borja: Kung hindi kayo nakikipag-usap ngayon
wala kayong ginagawa, narinig niyo ang usapan doon
sa kabila.
Witness 5: Yes sir.
Atty. Gloria: Lalo na pag malakas.
Mr. Borja: Pag malakas pero therein normal voice lang
level.
Witness 4: Kasi minsan malakas din yung radio nila eh.
Kung minsan kasi sir may mga music sila. Eto sir yung
time na kinuha... Dami nila eh... Lumabas nakita
naming mga ano mga 10:45 na yan nabasa sir.
Mr. Borja: Pero ang pinag-uusapan natin lagpas ng
alas onse (11) ha bago mag-alas dose (12) ang pinaka
latest message mo dito 02/03/06 11:06. So between
11:06 to 12 wala kayong...
Witness 4: Kasi nakikipag-coordination talaga kami
kahit... kami lang nandoon sa telepono.
Mr. Borja: Written pero voice coordination niyo sa
telepono kayo?
Witness 4: Tsaka naka log-in sa log book.
xxxx
Mr. Abesamis: Ma'am Joy [Witness 4] sabi niyo kanina
naririnig niyo si sir [respondent] sa kabila kung wala
kayong kausap lalong-lalo na kapag malakas yung
salita?
Witness 4: Opo.
Mr. Abesamis: So ibig sabihin kahit hindi malakas may
possibility na maririnig niyo yung usapan kung walang
radio? Siguro if intelligible or knowledgeable pero
maririnig mo sa kabila?
Witness 4: Kung mahina o normal yung usapan?
Mr. Abesarnis: Normal na usapan, conversation.
 Witness 4: Kasi may time na sumigaw na babae nga
Witness 4: Hindi siguro pag sarado sila. pero kala lang namin ah...

Mr. Abesamis: Pero kung halimbawa sisigaw? Mr. Abesamis: Nung date na iyon o hindi?

Witness 4: Maririnig siguro kasi kapag nagdidictate si Witness 4: Hindi, hindi pa sigurado eh kasi...
Attorney [respondent] minsan naririnig namin.
Mr. Abesarnis: Hindi yung date bang iyon ang sinasabi
Mr. Mendoza: Maski sarado yung pinto? mo?

Witness 4: Ah opo. Witness 4: Hindi kasi busy talaga kami sa coordination

nung ano eh nung time na iyon. Nasabay kasi eh nung
Mr. Mendoza: Naririnig? time na iyon hinahanap pa namin yung requirement.

Witness 4: Kung malakas. Mr. Mendoza: Pero bago yung bago mag April 2,
meron ba kayo na tuligan na nag-aanuhan ng ganun,
Mr. Mendoza: Ah kung malakas? nagrereklamo tungkol kay Atty. Nieva [respondent],
wala? May narinig kayong movie na parang sounding
Witness 4: Opo. na porno ganun?

Mr. Abesamis: So wala kayong naririnig man lang kahit Witness 4: Wala music lang talaga sir.
isang word na malakas doon sa kanila during the time
na nangyari ito? Mr. Mendoza: So music.

Witness 4: Nung time na iyan wala kasi kaming Witness 4: Kung minsan kasi binubuksan nila yung
maalala... door pag mainit yung kuwarto nila.

Mr. Abesamis: Walang possibility na narinig niyo pero Mr. Borja: At that time hindi bukas iyon?
mas busy kayo sa telephone operation.
Witness 4: Kami ano eh may cover ng ano cartolina na
Witness 4: Busy kami. white.

Mr. Abesamis: Hindi makikilatis yung ano... Mr. Borja: Makakatestify lang kayo sa audio eh, kasi
wala kayong nakikita.34
The above-cited excerpts of the Transcript show that at around past
11 o'clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, complainant and
respondent were left alone in the CAAP Office of the Board
Secretary as complainant's officemates were all out on errands. In
this regard, it was error on the part of the IBP to hastily conclude
from the testimonies of complainant's officemates who were
interviewed by the CODI that nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Surely, they were not in a position to confirm or refute complainant's
allegations as they were not physically in the office so as to make a
credible testimony as to the events that transpired therein during that
time.
Neither can the testimonies of those in the CAAP Operations Center
be used to conclude that respondent did not do anything to
complainant, considering that they themselves admitted that they
were all on the telephone, busy with their coordinating duties. They
likewise clarified that while their office is indeed separated from the
CAAP Office of the Board Secretary only by glass panels, they could
not see what was happening there as they covered the glass panels
with white cartolina. In light of their preoccupation from their official
duties as well as the fact that the glass panels were covered, it is
very unlikely for them to have noticed any commotion happening in
the adjacent CAAP Office of the Board Secretary.
Furthermore, the IBP should have taken the testimonies of the
witnesses in the CODI proceedings with a grain of salt. It bears
noting that all those interviewed in the CODI proceedings were job
order and regular employees of the CAAP. Naturally, they would be
cautious in giving any unfavorable statements against a high-ranking
official of the CAAP such as respondent who was the Acting Board
Secretary at that time - lest they earn the ire of such official and put
their career in jeopardy.
Thus, the IBP erred in concluding that such Transcript shows that
respondent did not perform the acts complained of. On the contrary,
said Transcript proves that there was indeed a period of time where
complainant and respondent were left alone in the CAAP Office of
the Board Secretary which gave respondent a window of opportunity
to carry out his acts constituting sexual harassment against
complainant.
More importantly, records reveal that complainant's allegations are
adequately supported by a Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation 35
dated April 13, 2009 stating that the onset of her psychiatric
problems - diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder with
recurrent major depression started after suffering the alleged sexual
molestation at the hands of respondent. Moreover, complainant's
plight was ably supported by other CAAP employees 36 as well as a
retired Brigadier General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines 37
through various letters to authorities seeking justice for complainant.
Perceptibly, complainant would not seek help from such supporters,
and risk their integrity in the process, if none of her allegations were
true. Besides, there is no evidence to establish that complainant was
impelled by any improper motive against respondent or that she had
reasons to fabricate her allegations against him. Therefore, absent
any competent proof to the contrary, the Court finds that
complainant's story of the April 2, 2009 incident was not moved by
any ill-will and was untainted by bias; and hence, worthy of belief and
credence.38 In this regard, it should be mentioned that respondent's
averment that complainant was only being used by other CAAP
employees to get back at him for implementing reforms within the
CAAP was plainly unsubstantiated, and thus, a mere self-serving
assertion that deserves no weight in law.39
In addition, the Court notes that respondent never refuted
complainant's allegation that he would regularly watch "pampagana"
movies in his office-issued laptop. In fact, respondent readily
admitted that he indeed watches "interesting shows" while in the
office, albeit insisting that he only does so by himself, and that he
would immediately dose his laptop whenever anyone would pass by
or go near his table. As confirmed in the Transcript 40 of the
investigation conducted by the CODI, these "pampagana" movies
and "interesting shows" turned out to be pornographic materials,
which respondent even asks his male staff to regularly play for him
as he is not well-versed in using computers. 41
Without a doubt, it has been established that respondent habitually
watches pornographic materials in his office-issued laptop while
inside the office premises, during office hours, and with the
knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Court cannot
countenance such audacious display of depravity on respondent's
part not only because his obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of
the government agency he works for - the CAAP where he was
engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary - but also
because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light. As a
lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected to perform
and discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty.42 However, his aforesaid habit miserably fails to
showcase these standards, and instead, displays sheer
unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the government
position he was entrusted to hold. His flimsy excuse that he only
does so by himself and that he would immediately close his laptop
whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table is of no
moment, because the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of
this case, remains. The legal profession - much more an
engagement in the public service should always be held in high
esteem, and those who belong within its ranks should be unwavering
exemplars of integrity and professionalism. As keepers of the public
faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are burdened with a high degree
of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs
with greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist
in the dispensation of justice should be more possessed of the
consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness of the flesh,
as respondent in this case.43
In the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, the quantum of proof by
which the charges against respondent were assessed was
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence "means
evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that
which is offered in opposition to it."44 Generally, under Rule 133 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence, this evidentiary threshold applies to
civil cases:
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. - In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the
issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts
and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner
of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify,
the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number
of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number. (Emphasis
supplied)
Nonetheless, in non-civil cases such as De Zuzuarregui, Jr. v.
Soguilon45 cited by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the Court
had pronounced that the burden of proof by preponderance of
evidence in disbarment proceedings is upon the complainant. 46
These rulings appear to conflict with other jurisprudence on the
matter which contrarily hold that substantial evidence is the quantum
of proof to be applied in administrative cases against lawyers. 47 The
latter standard was applied in administrative cases such as Foster v.
Agtang,48 wherein the Court had, in fact, illumined that:
 [T]he quantum of evidence required in civil cases is
different from the quantum of evidence required in
administrative cases. In civil cases, preponderance of
evidence is required. Preponderance of evidence is "a
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto." In administrative cases, only
substantial evidence is needed. Substantial
evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, would
suffice to hold one administratively liable.49 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted)
Similarly, in Peña v. Paterno,50 it was held:
Section 5, in [comparison with] Sections 1
[(Preponderance of evidence, how proved)] and 2
[(Proofbeyond reasonable doubt)], Rule 133, Rules of
Court states that in administrative cases, only
substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond
reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.51 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)
Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter is Cabas
v. Sususco,52 which was promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In the
said case, it was pronounced that:
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of
proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has
the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence.53
(Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and
therefore, quell any further confusion on the proper evidentiary
threshold to be applied in administrative cases against lawyers.
Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence - as
opposed to preponderance of evidence - is more in keeping with the
primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this
type of cases. As case law elucidates, "[d]isciplinary proceedings
against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather
an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor
therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest
is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers,
the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and
honest administration of justice by purging the profession of
members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus
be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor."54
With the proper application of the substantial evidence threshold
having been clarified, the Court finds that the present charges
against respondent have been adequately proven by this standard.
Complainant has established her claims through relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a country for their information and guidance and be attached to
conclusion - that is, that respondent had harassed her and respondent's personal record as attorney.
committed despicable acts which are clear ethical violations of the
CPR. In fine, respondent should be held administratively liable and
therefore, penalized.

Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative cases where the

lawyer exhibited immoral conduct, the Court meted penalties ranging
from reprimand to disbarment. In Advincula v. Macabata,55 the
lawyer was reprimanded for his distasteful act of suddenly turning
the head of his female client towards him and kissing her on the lips.
In De Leon v. Pedreña,56 the lawyer was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years for rubbing the female
complainant's right leg with his hand, trying to insert his finger into
her firmly closed hand, grabbing her hand and forcibly placed it on
his crotch area, and pressing his finger against her private part.
While in Guevarra v. Eala57 and Valdez v. Dabon,58 the Court meted
the extreme penalty of disbarment on the erring lawyers who
engaged in extramarital affairs. Here, respondent exhibited his
immoral behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic
materials while in the office and his acts of sexual harassment
against complainant. Considering the circumstances of this case, the
Court deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva is found GUILTY

of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective upon the finality of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar

Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
 A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROBERTO "ARGEE" C. GUEVARRA, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint 1 for
disbarment filed by complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares
(complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra
(respondent) for alleged violations of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1;
Rule 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 8.01 of Canon 8; and Rule 19.01, Canon
19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Facts
Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the
Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and
existing under Philippine laws2 and engaged in the specialized field
of cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of
a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed criminal
cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical
procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing
infection and making her ill in 2009.4
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook
account, a popular online social networking site, insulting and
verbally abusing complainant. His posts include the following
excerpts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out
to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client's Ass,
Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don't kiss Belo's ass.
Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa
Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a
national campaign against Plastic Politicians No guns,
No goons, No gold - IN GUTS I TRUST!
Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina
Norcio's Big Bang on Friday - You will go down in
Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK
QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS,
BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o
my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles :)
(September 22 at 11:18pm)5
Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki
Belo against me through her office receptionist in
Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag
talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna
ng Payola ang kaso... si Imelda Marcos nga sued me
for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to
me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm)6
Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may
'extra-legal' budget yon. Kaya lang, histado ko na
kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman
mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno
dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)7
Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BATCHMATES SA
DOJ: TIMBREHAN NIYO AKO KUNG MAGKANONG
PANGSUHOL NI BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA????
I just [want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang
payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions....
(September 15 at 3:57pm)8

Argee Guevarra thinks aloud how the payola
machinery of vicki belo killed the news of a picket
demonstration in front of the Belo clinic. I wonder
how television, print[,] and radio programs can kill the
story when the next rallies will have the following
numbers 100, 200, 500 and 1000. Kung magkaasaran
pa, 10,000 demonstrators will be assembled in front of
the Belo Medical Clinic at Tomas Morato on July 27,
2009. Hahahahaha! (July 17 at 7:56pm)9
Argee Guevarra Nakakatawa nga, 10milyon pa
budget... [I] didn't know that my reputation is worth that
much. Aba ako kaya magdemanda sa kanila :) Ikot-
ikot daw ang mga P.R. ni Belo trying to convince
editors to pin me down with something eh alam ko
na wala naman akong sex video!!! Adik talaga sa
botox si Aling Becky at may tama na sa utak - eh
kung gagastos ka lang ng 10 milyon para sa tirang-
pikon laban sa akin at to protect your burak na
reputasyon as a plastic surgeon, i-donate mo na
lang yon sa biktima ni Ondoy, Pepeng at Ramil! Yung
mga homeboys ko sa Pasig na nilimas [ni] Ondoy ang
kukubra sa yo! (October 23 at 5:31pm)10
Argee Guevarra is inspired by Jose Norio's courageous
act of showing her face on national television to expose
the Reyna ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Kapalpakan.
Inspired by shock nevertheless by the fact that the
much needed partial restoration of her behind would
cost a staggering $500,000-$1,000,000 Stanford
Medical Hospital and she will still remain permanently
disabled for the rest of her life... (July 11 at 2:08am) 11
Argee Guevarra Just got my internet connection. WILL
EMAIL U THE LURID UNASSAILABLE FACTS
ABOUT VICKI BELO'S QUACK DOCTORING.
(October 27, 2009)12
Argee Guevarra yeah... actually the issue is simple and
you will easily see which side you'll be taking- just pay
Ms. Josie Norcio a visit at St. Luke's at talagang
binaboy siya ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan (July 10 at
12:08am)13
chanrobleslaw
The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his
Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's
medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around
300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause, 14 to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Argee Guevarra yup... [I'll] even throw the kitchen sink
at her. Enjoy nga ito, we will paralyze the operations
of all her clinic and seek out her patients and
customers to boycott her. [So] far, good response –
70% decrease in her July sales... (August 9 at
10:29pm)15
Argee Guevarra Guys, pandemonium has broken loose
in [BMGI's] 6 clinics after Ms. Josie Norio's tell-all. With
only 2 surgeons of BMGI certified by PAPRAS, there is
real-and-present danger that surgeries like liposuction,
nose lift, boob jobs which have been performed by
[BMGI's] physicians, every patient runs the risk of
something going wrong with the procedures they have
undergone under [BMGI's] hands:(" (July 12 at
12:21am)16
Argee Guevarra [T]hey perform plastic surgery
procedures without licensed and trained doctors, they
nearly killed a client of mine, medical malpractice, use
of banned substances/fillers on patients. just recently,
in flawless clinic, a patient who had a simple facial
landed in the hospital ... (August 9 at 10:04pm) 17
Argee Guevarra braces for typhoon Ramil without
forgetting to ask comrades and friends in Cebu to greet
Vicki Belo with a boycott once she visits there on Oct.
20. Cebu's royal set already knows that she is not a
certified plastic surgeon: Boycott Belo, Flawless
Reckless, Belat Essentials!!!! (October 18 at
6:23pm)18
Argee Guevarra [W]ell, with all the kababuyan of the
Belo clinic, its money-making machines, dapat
convert them into public health clinics!!! instead of
pandering to the vanities of those who want to look like
Dra. Belo. (July 11 at 2:16am)19
Argee Guevarra darling kellyn, so far, i have 3 other ex-
belo patients who will tell all too!!!!! Grabe pala ang
mga kapalpakan niyan. So did u leave Belo Clinic
because it has become a Frankenstein Factory?
(July 11 at 2:30am)20
Argee Guevarra BOYCOTT BELO! FLAWLESS
RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I'll be gone for a
week to a place where there will be no facebook so
please, add Trixie Cruz-Angeles if you want to find out
more about our anti-quack doctor campaign!
(September 24 at 3:00pm)21
Argee Guevarra Anyone care to sponsor T-shirts
bearing this slogan? - BOYCOTT BELO! FLAWLESS
RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS! (September 23 at
12:17arn)22
Argee Guevarra Pare, eksena on Thursday I will go to
the hearing with a placard - BOYCOTT BELO!!!
FLAWLESS RECKLESS!!! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I
will vote for Adel Tamano (La Salle-Ateneo lower batch
sa akin at mabuti ang pamilya niyan)... BUT WOULD
YOU??? (September 23 at 1:50am)23
Argee Guevarra advocates a national patients' boycott
of the Belo Medical Group. To all my friends and
comrades, please stay away from Belo's clinics. I
have 2 cousins and 3 friends already who have
canceled their lipo from belo. Please help me shut
down the Belo Medical Group until they perform
their moral and legal obligation to Ms. Josie
Norcio... (July 17 at 2:12pm)24
chanrobleslaw
Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted
remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with criminal
conviction, without factual basis and without proof, 25 as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Argee Guevarra Mr. Jay, by next year- GMA will no
longer be president and she will be jailed for plunder;
Vicky Belo will no longer be a doctor and she will
be in the middle of a criminal prosecution. The
General Surgeon of France will have a Philippine
version. By October and November, some
congressmen I have spoken with will be issuing
summons to Vicky Belo for a congressional inquiry; the
subject - legislation regulating the practice of cosmetic
surgery! (September 22 at 11:31pm)26
 Argee Guevarra Celso de1os Angeles can still get
medical attention in prison - from Vicky Belo after she
gets convicted too for criminal negligence and
estafa (July 15 at 10:05am)27
Argee Guevarra is preparing himself for a campaign
against the Belo Medical Group for its criminal
negligence which nearly killed Ms. Josie Norcio
over a botched butt augmentation procedure. He
found out that the Dr. Belo herself marketed the
product to Ms. Norcio, the operation was carried out by
her doctors who were not licensed by the Philippine
Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic
Surgeons.............. (July 9 at 8:54pm) 28
chanrobleslaw
Complainant likewise averred that some of respondent's Facebook
posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of women, 29 to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Argee Guevarra but can u help me too with maricar
reyes? who's the hottest cebuana chic chick there
nowadays? haven't been there for quite some time...
pa-chicks ka naman!!! I'm sure marami kang 25-and-
below naprends diyan (August 10 at 8:36pm)30
Argee Guevarra hay joseph!!! how's the gayest lawyer
in cebu? our forces will soon picket the belo clinic
there, can u tell me where that is? halato ko na sayo
si hayden, promise!" (August 10 at 12:23am)31
Argee Guevarra joseph, i can't say i love u too - baka
belo's team will use all sorts of attacks na against me.
to thwart them, being the gayest gay in the philippines,
can u issue a certification that i am so not like your
type? at yung preferred ko lang ay thin, thalino and
thisay? (September 23 at 12:01am)32
chanrobleslaw
Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made
with the object to extort money from her, as apparent from the
following reply made by respondent on a comment on his Facebook
post:33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Kellyn Conde Sy utang mo! Pay up time:) (July 11 at
2:37am)
Argee Guevarra kellyn, sisingilin ko muna si belo...
at saka sabi mo naman, maibagsak ko lang ang
kaplastikan ni belo, quits na tayo ...(July 11 at
2:38am)34
chanrobleslaw
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene
language, were designed to inspire public hatred, destroy her
reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort
the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand
letter35 dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant
complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2551.
In defense,36 respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in
violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, 37 asserting
that the posts quoted by complainant were private remarks on his
private account on Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle
of friends of which complainant was not a part. 38 He also averred that
he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and
contended that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases
that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant. 39 He denied that
the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in
order to inspire public hatred against complainant. 40 He likewise
denied that he attempted to extort money from her, explaining that
he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the
criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for damages against
her. 41 Finally, respondent pointed out that complainant was a public
figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment. 42
After the mandatory conference had been terminated, 43 the parties
were directed to file their respective position papers. 44 Thereafter, the
IBP, through the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), set the case
for clarificatory hearing.45 Upon termination thereof, the case was
deemed submitted for report/recommendation.46
IBP's Report and Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation 47 dated August 13, 2013, the
IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended for a period
of one (1) year from the practice of law, with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.48 It held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03, 49 Rule
8.01,50 and Rule 19.0151 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for having posted the above-quoted remarks on his Facebook
account, pointing out that respondent cannot invoke the "private"
nature of his posts, considering that he had at least 2,000 "friends"
who can read and react thereto. Moreover, the IBP-CBD maintained
that the criminal cases he had filed against complainant on behalf of
Norcio had been dismissed for insufficient evidence; therefore, he
can no longer campaign against complainant whose alleged crimes
against Norcio had not been established.52
In a Resolution53 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the August 13, 2013
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
Respondent moved for reconsideration,54 arguing that there was no
specific act attributed to him that would warrant his suspension from
the practice of law. He also averred that the libel cases filed against
him by an employee of BMGI had already been dismissed, without
prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.55
In a Resolution56 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of
Governors partially granted respondent's motion, reducing the
penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months
suspension.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent
should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the
verified complaint.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court's Ruling
The Court has examined the records of this case and concurs with
the IBP's findings, except as to the penalty imposed on respondent.
At the outset, the Court notes that respondent never denied that he
posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about
complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense,
however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were
"private remarks" on his "private account" 57 that can only be viewed
by his circle of friends. Thus, when complainant accessed the same,
she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
The defense is untenable.
Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having
surpassed one (1) billion registered accounts and with 1.71 billion
monthly active users.58 Social media are web-based platforms that
enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share
content. There are various classifications 59 of social media platforms
and one can be classified under the "social networking sites" such as
Facebook.60
Facebook is a "voluntary social network to which members subscribe
and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling
friends to share information such as thoughts, links, and
photographs, with one another."61 Users register at this site, create a
personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as
friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications
when they update their profile. A user can post a statement, a photo,
or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone,
depending on the user's privacy settings.62
To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its
purpose, Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed
to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile, as well as information
uploaded by the user. In H v. W,63 the South Gauteng High Court of
Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the
users to "customize their privacy settings," but with the cautionary
advice that although Facebook, as stated in its policies, "makes
every effort to protect a user's information, these privacy settings are
however not foolproof."64
Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his
or her online social networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is
first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain
posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent
access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in
the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.65
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning
and insulting complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to
private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he
utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to
him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select
few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his
statement that the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto,
were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's
statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant
consideration.66
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation
that his posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there
is no assurance that the same - or other digital content that he
uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile - will be safeguarded
as within the confines of privacy, in light of the
following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected
by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any
conceivable way";
(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users
who are total strangers;
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the
 expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths,
hundreds; and
insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into
disrepute.71

A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of

disclosed that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to
(4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling
"tag" others who are not Facebook friends with the former, complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has
friends.67 been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and
reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of
complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
chanrobleslaw
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends"
disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a
does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of
"Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services
another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The
all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had
user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her
already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant
own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged
with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa which is contrary to
by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when
one's obligation "to act with justice."·
the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective
Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene
tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at
language, and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the
"Friends."68 Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim
reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are,
of violation of right to privacy is negated.
therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions
in the Code of Professional
Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject remarks
Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
were written in the exercise of his freedom of speech and
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
expression.
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. 69 While
profession.
the freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press
are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution,
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
otherwise improper.
good faith.70 As such, the constitutional right of freedom of

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
chanrobleslaw
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant
and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is
bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner
befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent.
Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words
unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an
aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and
BMGI's reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a
public personage who is exposed to criticism 72 does not justify
respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all
criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of
decency and propriety.73 In this case, respondent's remarks against
complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former
must be administratively sanctioned.
the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the
law invest in them."74 Accordingly, the Court finds that respondent
should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, as originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stem
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is
found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt
of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the
Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts.

"Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their

private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of
probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential
qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for
continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or
misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's behavior exhibited
in connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties,
but also covers any misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the
actual practice of their profession—would show them to be unfit for
 A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016
The complainant, however, claimed that the respondent's reply letter 5
ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, dated March 20, 2009, was couched in abusive, disrespectful
JR., Respondent.
language, malicious and unfounded accusations and besmirched his
RESOLUTION reputation.6 The reply letter in part
stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
REYES, J.: With reference to said Criminal Case No. 09-025403,
we received information that [the complainant]
In a verified complaint1 filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline allegedly used his "influence" in persuading the former
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Atty. Delio M.
handling Prosecutor of Inquest Case No. 09-388, not to
Aseron (complainant) sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Diño,
Jr. (respondent) for his alleged violations of the Code of Professional allow the release of the Passenger Bus with Plate No.
Responsibility (CPR). TWL-653, unless our client agrees to immediately pay
the mercenary claim of Php 2 Million as demanded by
[the complainant]. Fortunately, our client heeded our
Law Office's persistent advice not to fall prey to such
The Facts of the Disbarment Case
hustler tactic.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Due to the insinuations made by the respondent in his reply letter,
On January 25, 2009, the complainant figured in a vehicular accident
the complainant was constrained to file a libel case against the
along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City with a bus operated by
former before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI) which, at that time, was driven by
City.8chanrobleslaw
Jerry Garcia (Garcia).2chanrobleslaw
Also, the complainant asseverated that the respondent made a
Consequently, the complainant filed the following cases: (i) a criminal
mockery of the judicial system by employing unwarranted dilatory
case against Garcia for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage
tactics in Criminal Case No. 025403 and Civil Case No. Q-09-64558
to Property with Serious Physical Injuries docketed as Criminal Case
by filing numerous motions that were eventually denied by the courts
No. 025403 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City,
for lack of merit.9chanrobleslaw
Branch 36; (ii) a civil case for Damages against Garcia and NATI
docketed as Ci Case No. Q-09-64558 before the Regional Trial
Moreover, the complainant alleged that the respondent committed
Court of Quezon City, Branch 105. In both instances, the respondent
malpractice by misleading the court when he admitted ownership of
is the counsel of record for Garcia and NATI.3chanrobleslaw
the passenger bus with body number 054 and plate number TWC
653 as that of NATI in one pleading and denying it in
On March 3, 2009, Atty. Alberto H. Habitan, counsel for complainant,
another.10chanrobleslaw
demanded from NATI damages in the amount of not less than Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as a result of the
accident.4chanrobleslaw
On February 11, 2010, the IBP-CBD issued an Order 11 directing the
respondent to file his Answer within a period of 15 days from receipt Undaunted, the respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File and to
thereof. The respondent, however, failed to file his Answer within the Admit Motion for Reconsideration18 on April 15, 2015 praying that
period given to him. second motion for reconsideration19 be given due course.

On August 9, 2010, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice 12 directing the Issue

parties to attend a mandatory conference. The parties were likewise
ordered to submit their respective briefs at least three days prior to
the scheduled conference.
On April 6, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued an Order 13 declaring the case
submitted for resolution due to the respondent's failure to attend the
mandatory conference and to file his brief.
Resolutions of the IBP
Essentially, the sole issue in the present case is whether or not there
is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent liable for
violation of the CPR.
Ruling of the Court
The rule does not recognize the filing of a second Motion for
Reconsideration

On November 6, 2011, Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero In Bar Matter No. 1755, the Court emphasized the application of
(Commissioner Cachapero) issued his Report and Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,
Recommendation14 recommending that a penalty of censure be thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
meted against the respondent for failure to conduct himself toward In case a decision is rendered by the [Board of
his fellow lawyer with courtesy. Governors] that exonerates the respondent or imposes
a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the
On February 12, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration
Resolution15 adopting and approving the Report and within the 15-day period from notice. If the motion is
Recommendation of Commissioner Cachapero after finding that the denied, said party can file a petition for review under
respondent breached his ethical duties as a lawyer and that the Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within
same is fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable fifteen (15) days from notice of the resolution resolving
laws and rules. the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the
decision shall become final and executory and a copy
The respondent, on May 16, 2013, filed his motion tor of said decision shall be furnished this
reconsideration16 but the same was denied by the IBP Board of Court.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Governors in a Resolution17 dated September 27, 2014 it being a Clearly, the rule does not recognize the filing of a second motion for
mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out reconsideration. In fact, the rule expressly provides that the proper
and taken into consideration. The IBP Board of Governors, however, remedy of the losing party is to file a Petition for Review under Rule
modified the penalty by increasing it from censure to reprimand. 45 with this Court.

In accordance, however, with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of
Court and in the interest of substantial justice, the Court treats the
second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent as a
petition for review under Rule 45. This is consistent with the sui
generis nature of disbarment proceedings which focuses on the
qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the
bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the
case.21chanrobleslaw
There is no sufficient reason to reverse the findings of the IBP
Nonetheless, after a careful perusal of the records of the case, the
Court agrees with the findings of the IBP-CBD and the Board of
Governors that the respondent violated the CPR when he used
intemperate language in his letter to the complainant.
Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar 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 CPR
provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
In the present case, the respondent's actions failed to measure up to
this Canon. Records show that he imputed to the complainant the
use of his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass his
clients during the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof or
evidence to support the same.
As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge
against the complainant in a proper forum and without using
offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being
tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong
language in pursuit of his duty to advance the interest of his client. 22
Commissioner Cachapero's Report and Recommendation in part
stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Indeed, there is a strong showing that the Respondent
had failed to conduct himself toward his fellow lawyer
with that courtesy that all have the right to expect.
When he mentioned that Complainant had used his
influence in persuading the fiscal, he used a language
which was abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
He showed ill-feelings toward Complainant and allowed
such feeling to influence him in his conduct and
demeanor towards the
latter.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court has consistently reminded lawyers that though they are
entitled to present their case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to
be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive.24chanrobleslaw
As to the penalty, in Uy v. Atty. Depasucat,25cralawred the Court
reprimanded the lawyers for misconduct in using offensive and
abusive language in their Manifestation.26chanrobleslaw
Here, considering that the respondent was merely over-zealous in
protecting the rights of his client, the Court finds that the
recommended penalty by the IBP Board of Governors to reprimand
him for the use of intemperate language against his fellow lawyer is
proper under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court RESOLVES treat
respondent Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr.'s second Motion for
Reconsideration as a Petition for Review under Rule 45, and DENY
the same for lack of merit.
Moreover, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Resolution No.
XXI-2014-597 dated September 27, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors meting out the penalty of
REPRIMAND against Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. for breach of his ethical
duties as a lawyer.
 A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE
REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S.
LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
SERENO, C.J.:
On 8 February 2006, the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche
(complainant), through its founding partner, Atty. Francisco M.
Chavez, filed a Complaint-Affidavit1 before this Court. Complainant
sought the disbarment of Attys. Restitute S. Lazaro and Rodel R.
Morta (respondents) for violation of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It was alleged that respondents falsely
and maliciously accused complainant and its lawyers of antedating a
Petition for Review filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10
October 2005.2chanrobleslaw
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
The circumstances, which led to the filing of this administrative
complaint, occurred in connection with Criminal Case No. Q-05-
136678. The latter was a case for libel then pending against Eliseo
F. Soriano before Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City.3 Complainant acted as the legal counsel of Soriano in
that case while respondents represented private complainant
Michael M. Sandoval.4chanrobleslaw
On 11 October 2005, lawyers from complainant law firm, led by Atty.
Chavez, appeared before the RTC to seek the cancellation of
Soriano's scheduled arraignment.5 During the hearing, Atty. Chavez
informed the RTC that a Petition for Review had been filed before
the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October 2005. The Petition
questioned the resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City finding probable cause to indict Soriano for libel. 6 Atty.
Chavez presented an extra copy of the Petition for Review before the
RTC, and explained that the main copy of the Petition stamped
received by the DOJ was still with the office messenger, who had
personally filed the pleading the day before. 7 Citing the filing of the
Petition for Review, Atty. Chavez moved for the suspension of the
arraignment for a period of 60 days pursuant to Rule 116, Section 11
(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 8 The RTC, however,
denied the motion and proceeded with Soriano's
arraignment.9chanrobleslaw
The events that transpired during the arraignment led complainant to
conclude that Presiding Judge Hilario Laqui of Branch 218 was
biased against its client.10 Consequently, it filed a Motion for
Inhibition on 18 October 2005 requesting Judge Laqui to voluntary
inhibit himself from the case.11chanrobleslaw
On 11 November 2005, respondents filed with the RTC a pleading
entitled "A Vehement Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition" 12
(Vehement Opposition) to contradict complainant's motion. The
following statements, which have become the subject of the instant
disbarment complaint, were contained in that
pleading:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
A Vehement Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition
COMES NOW, private complainant, by and through the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully states:
1. Allegedly, the Presiding Judge exhibited bias,
partiality, prejudice and has pre-judged the
case against the accused when he proceeded
with the arraignment despite the pendency of a
 petition for review filed with the Department of
Justice.
2. They alleged that on October 10, 2005, or the
day before the scheduled arraignment, they
have filed the petition.
3. They cited Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, where it
is provided that upon motion, the arraignment
of the accused shall be suspended when a
petition for review of the resolution of the
prosecutor is pending.
4. We contemplated over this matter. If indeed
the petition was duly filed with the DOJ on
October 10, 2005, why is it that the accused
did not present a copy of the petition
stamped "received" by the DOJ? Why did
he not make a manifestation that he forgot
to bring a copy? He could have easily
convinced the Presiding Judge to suspend
the arraignment upon a promise that a copy
thereof will be filed with the court in the
afternoon of October 11, 2005 or even the
following day.
5. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the
accused was able to antedate the filing or
mailing of the petition.13 (Emphases supplied)
The allegation of antedating was reiterated by respondents in a
Comment/Opposition to the Accused's Motion for Reconsideration
filed with the RTC on 6 December 2006:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
4. It is our conclusion that the accused and his
lawyers were able to antedate the filing or mailing
of the petition. We cannot conclude otherwise, unless
the accused and his battery of lawyers will admit that
on October 11, 2005 that they suddenly or temporarily
became amnesiacs. They forgot that they filed the
Petition for Review the day before. 14 (Emphasis
supplied)
In the Complaint-Affidavit it filed with this Court, complainant
vehemently denied the allegation of antedating. 15 As proof that the
Petition for Review was personally filed with the DOJ on 10 October
2005, complainant attached to its Complaint-Affidavit a copy of the
Petition bearing the DOJ stamp.16chanrobleslaw
In their Comment dated 4 May 2006,17 respondents alleged that the
filing of the disbarment complaint against them was a mere
harassment tactic. As proof, they cited the non-inclusion of another
signatory to the Vehement Opposition, Public Prosecutor Nadine
Jaban-Fama, as a respondent in the Complaint.18 They also
contended that the statements they had made in their pleadings
were covered by the doctrine of privileged
19
communication. chanrobleslaw
In a Resolution dated 7 August 2006, the Court referred this case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation.20chanrobleslaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP
In his Report and Recommendation dated 7 July 2008, 21
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents guilty of
violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We agree with the complainant that the accusation that
they antedated the mailing of the DO.I petition is
violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the duty of all lawyers to observe civility and propriety
in their pleadings. It was somewhat irresponsible for
the respondents to make such an accusation on the
basis of pure speculation, considering that they had no
 proof to support their accusation and did not even
make any attempt to verify from the DO.I the date and
the manner by which the said petition was filed.
Moreover, as held in Asa, we will have to disagree with
the respondents argument on privileged
communication, the use of offensive language in
pleadings filed in the course of judicial proceedings,
constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary action.
xxxx
In Asa, the Supreme Court found Atty. Ginger Anne
Castillo guilty of breach of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and admonished her to
refrain from using offensive and improper language in
her pleadings. Considering that the respondents'
accusation that the complainant and its lawyers
antedated the mailing of Bro. Eliseo Soriano's DOJ
Petition is somewhat more serious than an allegation of
wanting additional attorney's fees for opening doors
and serving coffee, we believe that the penalty of
reprimand would be proper in this case.
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully
recommended that respondent Attys. Restituto Lazaro
and Rodel Morta be reprimanded for using improper
language in their pleadings with a warning that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more
severely.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On 14 August 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XVIII-2008-391, which adopted and approved Commissioner
Limpingco's Report and
Recommendation:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of
the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, and for using
improper language in their pleadings Atty. Restituto
Lazaro and Atty. Rodel Morta are REPRIMANDED with
a Warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt
with more severely.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On 14 November 2008, respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 14 August 2008. They
argued that the Complaint against them should have been dismissed
on the following grounds: (a) complainant's failure to implead the
public prosecutor, who must be considered an indispensable party to
the case, since the pleading in question could not have been filed
without her conformity; (b) as the subject pleadings had been signed
by the public prosecutor, their contents enjoyed the presumption of
regularity and legality, upon which respondents were entitled to rely;
(c) respondents relied in good faith on the review, supervision and
direction of the public prosecutor in the filing of the pleading in
question; and (d) the statements in the pleading were covered by the
doctrine of privileged communication. 24 Respondents also contended
that Atty. Chavez should be disciplined for the derogatory statements
made against them in the pleadings he submitted during the IBP
investigation.
Complainant filed a Comment/Opposition25cralawred to respondents'
Motion for Reconsideration on 8 January 2009.
On 22 March 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XXI-2014-146 granting respondent's Motion for Reconsideration
and recommending the dismissal of the instant case on the basis of
complainant's failure to implead an indispensable
party:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
RESOLVED to GRANT Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration, considering that complainant's non-
joinder of an indispensable party makes the
presumption that Respondents acted according to
regulations and in good faith in the performance of their
official duties. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391
dated August 14, 2008 is hereby SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the case against Respondents is hereby
DISMISSED with stern Warning to be more
circumspect.
To date, this Court has not received any petition from complainant or
any other interested party questioning Resolution No. XXI-2014-146
of the IBP Board of Governors. However, pursuant to Section 12,
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court as amended by Bar Matter No.
1645,26 we must ultimately decide disciplinary proceedings against
members of the bar, regardless of the acts of the complainant. 27 This
rule is consistent with our obligation to preserve the purity of the
legal profession and ensure the proper and honest administration of
justice.28 In accordance with this duty, we now pass upon the
recommendation of the IBP.
OUR RULING
After a judicious examination of the records of this case, the Court
resolves to SET ASIDE Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 of the IBP
Board of Governors. Not only are the grounds cited as bases for the
dismissal of the complaint inapplicable to disbarment proceedings.
We are also convinced that there is sufficient justification to discipline
respondents for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Non-joinder of a party is not a ground to dismiss a disciplinary
proceeding.
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-146, the IBP Board of Governors
dismissed the instant case because of complainant's purported
failure to implead an indispensable party. Although this ground for
dismissal was not explained at length in its resolution, the IBP Board
of Governors appeared to have given credence to the argument
proffered by respondents. They had argued that the public
prosecutor was an indispensable party to the proceeding, and that
her non-joinder was a ground for the dismissal of the case. That
ruling is patently erroneous.
In previous cases, the Court has explained that disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis.29 These proceedings
are neither purely civil nor purely criminal, 30 but are rather
investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. 31 Technical
rules of procedure are not strictly applied, 32 but are construed in a
manner that allows us to determine whether lawyers are still fit to
fulfill the duties and exercise the privileges of their
office.33chanrobleslaw
We cannot countenance the dismissal of the case against
respondents merely because the public prosecutor has not been
joined as a party. We emphasize that in disbarment proceedings, the
Court merely calls upon members of the bar to account for their
actuations as officers of the Court.34 Consequently, only the lawyer
who is the subject of the case is indispensable. No other party, not
even a complainant, is needed.35chanrobleslaw
In this case, respondents are only called upon to account for their
own conduct. Specifically, their pleadings contain the accusation that
complainant antedated the filing of a petition before the DOJ. The
fact that Public Prosecutor Jaban-Fama also signified her conformity
to the pleadings containing these statements is irrelevant to the issue
of whether respondents' conduct warrants the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions.
Respondents cannot utilize the presumption of regularity
accorded to acts of the public prosecutor as a defense for their
own misconduct.
Respondents cannot excuse their conduct by invoking the
presumption of regularity accorded to official acts of the public
prosecutor. It must be emphasized that the act in question, i.e. the
preparation of the pleadings subject of the Complaint, was performed
by respondents and not by the public prosecutor. Hence, any
impropriety in the contents of or the language used in these
pleadings originated from respondents. The mere fact that the public
prosecutor signed the pleadings after they were prepared could not
have cured any impropriety contained therein. The presumption that
the public prosecutor performed her duties regularly and in
accordance with law cannot shield respondents from liability for their
own conduct.
The claim of respondents that they relied in good faith on the
approval of the public prosecutor is likewise untenable. As lawyers,
they have a personal obligation to observe the Code of Professional
Responsibility. This obligation includes the duty to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their
professional colleagues, including opposing counsel. Respondents
cannot disregard this solemn duty solely on the basis of the
signature of a public prosecutor and later seek to absolve
themselves from liability by pleading good faith.
Respondents violated Canons 8 and JO of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
There being no cause for the dismissal of the instant case, the Court
now proceeds to determine whether respondents have indeed
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
We note that the essential allegations of the Complaint-Affidavit have
already been admitted by respondents. In the Comment 36 they
submitted to this Court, they even reproduced the pertinent portions 37
of their pleadings that contained the allegations of antedating.
Accordingly, the only question left for us to resolve is whether their
conduct violates the ethical code of the profession.
After a thorough evaluation of the pleadings filed by the parties and
the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Limpingco, the
Court finds respondents guilty of violating Canons 8 38 and 1039 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and
temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with
the dignity of the legal profession.40 Their arguments, whether written
or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the opposing
counsel and should consist only of such words as may be properly
addressed by one honorable member of the bar to another. 41 In this
case, respondents twice accused complainant of antedating a
petition it had filed with the DOJ without any proof whatsoever. This
allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and its
lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the
courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the
absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
That the statements conveyed the perception by respondents of the
events that transpired during the scheduled arraignment and their
"truthful belief regarding a perceived irregularity" in the filing of the
Petition is not an excuse. As this Court emphasized in Re: Supreme
Court Resolution Dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 &
145822:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Court cannot countenance the ease with which
lawyers, in the hopes of strengthening their cause in a
motion for inhibition, make grave and unfounded
 accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are hereby ADMONISHED
against other members of the legal profession. It is the to use only respectful and temperate language in the preparation of
duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive pleadings and to be more circumspect in dealing with their
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the professional colleagues. They are likewise STERNLY WARNED that
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
required by the justness of the cause with which they with more severely.
are charged.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial
proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof is privileged. 43
While lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for
privileged statements made in their pleadings, they remain subject to
this Court's supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the
observance of their duty as members of the legal
profession.44chanrobleslaw

We believe, though, that the use of intemperate and abusive

language does not merit the ultimate penalty of disbarment. 45
Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility and sternly warned that the
Court will deal with future similar conduct more
severely.46chanrobleslaw

A final note. We find it necessary to remind the IBP of its duty to

judiciously investigate and evaluate each and every disciplinary
action referred to it by this Court. In making its recommendations, the
IBP should bear in mind the purpose of disciplinary proceedings
against members of the bar — to maintain the integrity of the legal
profession for the sake of public interest. Needless to state, the
Court will not look with favor upon a recommendation based entirely
on technical and procedural grounds.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution dated 22 March

2014 issued by the IBP Board of Governors is hereby SET ASIDE.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/aug2016/pdf/ac_8210_2016.pdf
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4011/
A.C. No. 9604 March 20, 2013
RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER,
Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This administrative case arose from a Complaint tiled by Rodrigo E.
Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia), both employees of
the Sugar Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo
(Atty. Bancolo) and Atty. Janus T. larder (Atty. Jarder) for violation of
the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism, Falsification of Public
Document, Gross Dishonesty, and Harassment.
The Facts
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order
dated 14 October 2004 from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas
requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation
of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt
practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr.
(Divinagracia), a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory
Administration. The Complaint1 dated 31 August 2004 was allegedly
signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of
the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros
Occidental.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each
other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them
before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he
represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in
person. When Rustia showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo
declared that the signature appearing above his name as counsel for
Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to
sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. On 9 December 2004, Atty.
Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed signature
appearing on the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
and submitted six specimen signatures for comparison. Using Atty.
Bancolo’s affidavit and other documentary evidence, Tapay and
Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the
signature of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.
In a Resolution dated 28 March 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman
provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of the
counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaint’s
validity. Also, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered that separate
cases for Falsification of Public Document2 and Dishonesty3 be filed
against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit dated 1 August
2005 denying that he falsified the signature of his former lawyer,
Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated
1 August 2005 by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty.
Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s
case and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
was signed by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions.
Divinagracia asked that the Office of the Ombudsman dismiss the
cases for falsification of public document and dishonesty filed against
him by Rustia and Atty. Bancolo and to revive the original Complaint
for various offenses that he filed against Tapay and Rustia.
In a Resolution dated 19 September 2005, the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public
document (OMB-V-C-05-0207-E) for insufficiency of evidence. The
dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence, without prejudice to the re-filing by
Divinagracia, Jr. of a proper complaint for violation of RA 3019 and
other offenses against Rustia and Tapay.
SO ORDERED.4
The administrative case for dishonesty (OMB-V-A-05-0219-E) was
also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence in a Decision dated
19 September 2005.
On 29 November 2005, Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint5 to disbar Atty. Bancolo and
Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law partner. The complainants alleged
that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the
Office of the Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo.
Complainants stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the
Complaint was not the only one that was forged. Complainants
attached a Report6 dated 1 July 2005 by the Philippine National
Police Crime Laboratory 6 which examined three other letter-
complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other clients, allegedly close
friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the questioned
signatures in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard
signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and the same
person. Thus, complainants maintained that not only were
respondents engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices,
they were also involved in falsification of documents used to harass
and persecute innocent people.
On 9 January 2006, complainants filed a Supplement to the
Disbarment Complaint Due to Additional Information. They alleged
that a certain Mary Jane Gentugao, the secretary of the Jarder
Bancolo Law Office, forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.
In their Answer dated 26 January 2006 to the disbarment complaint,
respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed
by Divinagracia against complainants before the Office of the
Ombudsman were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. The
cases were assigned to Atty. Bancolo. Atty. Bancolo alleged that
after being informed of the assignment of the cases, he ordered his
staff to prepare and draft all the necessary pleadings and
documents. However, due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo
permitted that the pleadings and communications be signed in his
name by the secretary of the law office. Respondents added that
complainants filed the disbarment complaint to retaliate against them
since the cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman were
meritorious and strongly supported by testimonial and documentary
evidence. Respondents also denied that Mary Jane Gentugao was
employed as secretary of their law office.
Tapay and Rustia filed a Reply to the Answer dated 2 March 2006.
Thereafter, the parties were directed by the Commission on Bar
Discipline to attend a mandatory conference scheduled on 5 May
2006. The conference was reset to 10 August 2006. On the said
date, complainants were present but respondents failed to appear.
The conference was reset to 25 September 2006 for the last time.
Again, respondents failed to appear despite receiving notice of the
conference. Complainants manifested that they were submitting their
disbarment complaint based on the documents submitted to the IBP.
Respondents were also deemed to have waived their right to
participate in the mandatory conference. Further, both parties were
directed to submit their respective position papers. On 27 October
2006, the IBP received complainants’ position paper dated 18
October 2006 and respondents’ position paper dated 23 October
2006.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
On 11 April 2007, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
submitted her Report. Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo
violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility while Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
same Code. The Investigating
Commissioner recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for
two years from the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished
for his failure to exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner
opined:
x x x. In his answer, respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo admitted
that his signature appearing in the complaint filed against
complainants’ Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia with the
Ombudsman were signed by the secretary. He did not refute the
findings that his signatures appearing in the various documents
released from his office were found not to be his. Such pattern of
malpratice by respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule
9.01 of Canon 9, for a lawyer who allows a non-member to represent
him is guilty of violating the aforementioned Canon. The fact that
respondent was busy cannot serve as an excuse for him from
signing personally. After all respondent is a member of a law firm
composed of not just one (1) lawyer. The Supreme Court has ruled
that this practice constitute negligence and undersigned finds the act
a sign of indolence and ineptitude. Moreover, respondents ignored
the notices sent by undersigned. That showed patent lack of respect
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar
Discipline and its proceedings. It betrays lack of courtesy and
irresponsibility as lawyers.
On the other hand, Atty. Janus T. Jarder, a senior partner of the law
firm Jarder Bancolo and Associates Law Office, failed to exercise
certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm.
As a senior partner[,] he failed to abide to the principle of "command
responsibility". x x x.
xxxx
Respondent Atty. Janus Jarder after all is a seasoned practitioner,
having passed the bar in 1995 and practicing law up to the present.
He holds himself out to the public as a law firm designated as Jarder
Bancolo and Associates Law Office. It behooves Atty. Janus T.
Jarder to exert ordinary diligence to find out what is going on in his
law firm, to ensure that all lawyers in his firm act in conformity to the
Code of Professional Responsibility. As a partner, it is his
responsibility to provide efficacious control of court pleadings and
other documents that carry the name of the law firm. Had he done
that, he could have known the unethical practice of his law partner
Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. Respondent Atty. Janus T. Jarder failed to
perform this task and is administratively liable under Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 7
On 19 September 2007, in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-97, the Board
of Governors of the IBP approved with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The Resolution
states:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and,
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
Respondent Atty. Bancolo’s violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.
However, with regard to the charge against Atty. Janus T. Jarder, the
Board of Governors RESOLVED as it is hereby RESOLVED to
AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the
case for lack of merit.8
Tapay and Rustia filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Likewise, Atty.
Bancolo filed his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December
2007. Thereafter, Atty. Jarder filed his separate Consolidated
Comment/Reply to Complainants’ Motion for Reconsideration and
Comment Filed by Complainants dated 29 January 2008.
In Resolution No. XX-2012-175 dated 9 June 2012, the IBP Board of
Governors denied both complainants’ and Atty. Bancolo’s motions
for reconsideration. The IBP Board found no cogent reason to
reverse the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and affirmed
Resolution No. XVIII-2007-97 dated 19 September 2007.
The Court’s Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, we agree with the
findings and recommendation of the IBP Board and find reasonable
grounds to hold respondent Atty. Bancolo administratively liable.
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client
before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a
secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
 CANON 9
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the Bar in good standing.
This rule was clearly explained in the case of Cambaliza v. Cristal-
Tenorio,9 where we held:
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards
of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that
this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his
name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law
makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to
aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, 10 we held that the
preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving
the practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members of the
legal profession. Atty. Bancolo’s authority and duty to sign a pleading
are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer.
Further, under the Rules of Court, counsel’s signature serves as a
certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it;
and (3) it is not interposed for delay. 11 Thus, by affixing one’s
signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility
to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the
document.1âwphi1
In his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December 2007, Atty.
Bancolo wants us to believe that he was a victim of circumstances or
of manipulated events because of his unconditional trust and
confidence in his former law partner, Atty. Jarder. However, Atty.
Bancolo did not take any steps to rectify the situation, save for the
affidavit he gave to Rustia denying his signature to the Complaint
filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo had an
opportunity to maintain his innocence when he filed with the IBP his
Joint Answer (with Atty. Jarder) dated 26 January 2006. Atty.
Bancolo, however, admitted that prior to the preparation of the Joint
Answer, Atty. Jarder threatened to file a disbarment case against him
if he did not cooperate. Thus, he was constrained to allow Atty.
Jarder to prepare the Joint Answer. Atty. Bancolo simply signed the
verification without seeing the contents of the Joint Answer.
In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of
some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against
Tapay and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his
tolerance. Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his
signature to a pleading. This violation Is an act of falsehood which IS
a ground for disciplinary action.
The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder was
directly involved, had knowledge of, or even participated in the
wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his
secretary to sign pleadings for him. Thus, we agree with the finding
of the IBP Board that Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable.
In sum, we find that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the
practice of law for one year is warranted. We also find proper the
dismissal of the case against Atty. larder.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Janus T.
larder for lack of merit.
We find respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively liable
for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one year effective upon finality of this Decision. He is warned that
a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent Atty. Charlie L.

Bancolo's record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies of this
Decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them
to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/oct2019/pdf/ac_10408_2019
.pdf