G.R. No. A.C. No. 10628; July 1, 2015
Maximino Noble III, Complainant, vs. Atty. Orlando O. Ailes, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maximino Noble III filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes. The complaint stemmed from two primary incidents. First, in a Complaint for damages filed by Orlando against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. (whom Maximino represented), Orlando indicated an IBP O.R. number for 2009 and an MCLE Compliance Number for his second compliance period, which Maximino alleged should have been updated for 2010 and the third compliance period, respectively. Second, and more central to the case, Maximino discovered that Orlando had sent text messages to his brother and client, Marcelo, maligning Maximino’s competence, calling him “polpol” (stupid), accusing him of charging exorbitant fees, and actively dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services. Orlando also prepared a “Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel” and a “Compromise Agreement” for Marcelo to sign, which contained derogatory statements about Maximino’s professional conduct. In a related criminal case filed by Marcelo against Orlando for grave threats and estafa (later downgraded to unjust vexation), Orlando voluntarily pleaded guilty and was convicted for vexing Marcelo by “texting insulting, threatening and persuading words to drop his lawyer over a case.” The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed the administrative complaint, finding no gross violation warranting liability, but the Supreme Court reviewed the matter.

ISSUE

Whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Atty. Orlando O. Ailes for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious. It held that the IBP incorrectly dismissed the complaint regarding the ethical violations. The Court ruled that Atty. Orlando O. Ailes was GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His text messages and actions, intended to malign Complainant Maximino Noble III and persuade his client to terminate his services, constituted offensive and improper language, encroachment upon the professional employment of another lawyer, and conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to act with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues applies even in private communications, and Orlando’s guilty plea to unjust vexation was an admission of his disrespectful conduct. However, the Court agreed with the IBP that Orlando’s failure to properly indicate his updated MCLE compliance information in a pleading, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922, was not a ground for disbarment but would only be cause for the dismissal and expunction of that pleading. The Court ADMONISHED Atty. Ailes to be more circumspect and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.