G.R. No. A.C. No. 10757. December 05, 2016
LOUISITO N. CHUA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. OSCAR A. PASCUA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Louisito N. Chua filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Oscar A. Pascua for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Pascua was the co-plaintiff in an ejectment suit filed against Dr. Chua and his mother. After the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the suit, Atty. Pascua appealed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the appeal but later reversed itself and ruled in favor of Atty. Pascua upon his motion for reconsideration. Dr. Chua alleged that Atty. Pascua did not furnish them a copy of this motion, preventing them from having their day in court, and that only Atty. Pascua appeared at its hearing. Dr. Chua further accused Atty. Pascua of using foul and insulting language in his written submissions to the RTC, specifically in his comment/opposition to Dr. Chua’s motion for reconsideration, where he used words like “duped,” “ignorance and abusive manner,” and “foolishness.” Dr. Chua also claimed Atty. Pascua accused the presiding judge of “bungling” the case, leading to the judge’s voluntary inhibition. Additional charges included abuse of court procedures, such as allegedly altering the date on a demand letter, attaching inconsistent registry receipts to a motion, and presenting exhibits ex parte. Dr. Chua also pointed to discrepancies in Atty. Pascua’s indicated MCLE certificate dates and the alleged use of another lawyer’s MCLE number, and accused him of fomenting suits where he would have clients execute a Deed of Sale of Rights as payment for his attorney’s fees and make himself a co-plaintiff. In his answer, Atty. Pascua denied the allegations, characterizing the language used as part of pleadings made in good faith and attributing the MCLE errors to typographical mistakes. The IBP’s Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted. Atty. Pascua’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Oscar A. Pascua should be held administratively liable for the alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the IBP Board of Governors’ resolutions and ABSOLVED Atty. Oscar A. Pascua of the administrative complaint. The Court held that while lawyers have a duty under Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 20(f), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to refrain from using abusive, offensive, or improper language, the specific words cited by the complainant (“duped,” “ignorance,” “abusive manner,” “foolishness”) were not per se offensive or abusive. The Court noted that the adversarial nature of the legal system sometimes necessitates strong language, provided it is not intemperate or offensive. The Court found that the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s report and the Board of Governors’ resolution failed to provide a clear and distinct statement of facts and reasons supporting the finding of liability, particularly regarding the other charges of misusing legal processes, MCLE discrepancies, and encouraging suits. The resolution merely listed the charges without substantiating them with factual findings. Due to this lack of a reasoned explanation based on the evidence, as required by Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court had no alternative but to dismiss the charges. The case was declared closed and terminated.