G.R. No. A.C. No. 10605. February 17, 2016
BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Bienvenido T. Canlapan, a retired Scout Executive, filed an administrative case against Atty. William B. Balayo for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from a mandatory conference before the Labor Arbiter concerning Canlapan’s money claim against the Boy Scouts of the Philippines – Mayon Albay Council. Canlapan alleged that Atty. Balayo, who appeared for the Council’s Chair, arrogantly threatened him by stating, “Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!” This remark was allegedly made when Canlapan protested that he was at a disadvantage for being without counsel. Canlapan felt publicly humiliated and claimed the lawyer’s conduct unduly delayed the enforcement of a pre-existing compromise agreement.
In his defense, Atty. Balayo asserted he was rendering free legal assistance. He contended that his appearance was a special appearance to challenge the validity of a Memorandum of Agreement due to its defective notarization, as the Council’s signatory had not acknowledged it before the notary. He denied making the exact threatening statement, claiming he only said, “You can bring as many lawyers as you want, the result will be the same,” in a matter-of-fact tone after being provoked by Canlapan’s persistent remarks. He maintained his actions were to prevent fraud and were not disrespectful.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. William B. Balayo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through his conduct during the mandatory conference.

RULING

The Court found Atty. Balayo guilty of violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01, which mandates that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession is paramount. While the exact wording of the statement was contested, Atty. Balayo admitted to telling the elderly complainant that bringing more lawyers would not change the outcome. The Court ruled that such a statement, especially when directed at a senior citizen without legal representation in a quasi-judicial setting, was discourteous, arrogant, and demeaning. It fostered an oppressive atmosphere and fell short of the civility and respect required of officers of the court.
The Court rejected the justification of being provoked, stating that a lawyer must exercise restraint and maintain a decorous demeanor at all times. The act of publicly belittling a party, regardless of the perceived merit of one’s legal position, constitutes misconduct. The legal profession demands courtesy and fair play, not intimidation. Consequently, Atty. Balayo was suspended from the practice of law for one month, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court underscored that a lawyer’s zeal must always be tempered by courtesy and dignified conduct.