G.R. No. 10737 , November 09, 2015
Rolando Tolentino, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rodil L. Millado and Atty. Francisco B. Sibayan, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Rolando Tolentino filed a disbarment case against respondents Atty. Rodil L. Millado and Atty. Francisco B. Sibayan for alleged violations of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complaint stemmed from their representation of Henry Manalo in an election protest case where Tolentino was the opposing candidate. After the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) declared Tolentino the winner and granted his motion for execution pending appeal, Manalo, through Atty. Millado, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the COMELEC. Atty. Sibayan later filed an Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion as collaborating counsel.
Tolentino accused Atty. Millado of misrepresenting the ruling in Fermo v. COMELEC by stating that “shortness of term” is not a sufficient ground for execution pending appeal. He charged Atty. Sibayan with writing a misleading statement by incorrectly indicating the date of the MTCC decision as May 5, 2014, instead of November 26, 2014. Tolentino further alleged that both respondents falsely claimed the MTCC baselessly disregarded the PNP Crime Laboratory’s handwriting analysis findings to prejudice Manalo.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through alleged misrepresentations in their pleadings before the COMELEC.

RULING

The Supreme Court reprimanded the respondents but found no violation of Canon 10 (Candor and Fairness to the Court) as originally charged. Regarding Atty. Millado, the Court held his restatement of the Fermo doctrine—that shortness of term alone is insufficient to justify execution pending appeal—was a permissible paraphrase that did not alter the ruling’s substance. Concerning Atty. Sibayan’s incorrect date, the Court accepted his explanation of a typographical error, noting the correct date was stated elsewhere in the same pleading, negating intent to mislead.
However, the Court found both respondents liable for violating Canon 11 (Respect for the Courts) and its specific rules. By alleging in their pleadings that the MTCC “baselessly disregarded” the PNP findings and substituted its own conclusions despite lacking expertise in handwriting analysis, the respondents engaged in disrespectful and intemperate language. The Court emphasized that while lawyers may criticize judges, such criticism must be temperate, fair, and based on facts. The respondents’ accusations imputed partiality and incompetence to the judge without fair basis, constituting a breach of Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the CPR. The respondents were thus reprimanded with a stern warning.