A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016
Atty. Delio M. Aseron, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Delio M. Aseron was involved in a vehicular accident with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI). He subsequently filed a criminal case against the driver and a civil case for damages against both the driver and NATI. The respondent, Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr., acted as counsel for the driver and NATI in both cases. After the complainant’s counsel made a demand for damages, the respondent replied via a letter dated March 20, 2009. The complainant alleged that this reply contained abusive, disrespectful, and malicious language, specifically insinuating that the complainant used his “influence” over a prosecutor and engaged in a “hustler tactic” to extort money. This prompted the complainant to file a libel case and the instant disbarment complaint.
The complainant further accused the respondent of employing dilatory tactics in the related court cases and of committing malpractice by making inconsistent representations regarding bus ownership. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) proceeded with the investigation. The respondent failed to file his answer, attend the mandatory conference, and submit his required brief. The IBP-CBD thus declared the case submitted for resolution based on the evidence presented by the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the respondent liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is liable. The Supreme Court treated the respondent’s improper second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 45, adhering to the liberal application of procedural rules in the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings, which focus on a lawyer’s fitness rather than technicalities. On the merits, the Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. The respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their professional colleagues.
The respondent’s reply letter, which accused the complainant of using influence and labeled his claim a “mercenary” demand arising from a “hustler tactic,” constituted intemperate, offensive, and abusive language. While a lawyer must defend a client’s rights with vigor, this duty does not justify the use of derogatory and disrespectful remarks. The language employed showed ill-feeling and a failure to maintain the decorum required in professional dealings. The Court found no reason to reverse the IBP’s conclusion, as the respondent’s failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings effectively waived his right to contest the allegations. Considering the respondent’s over-zealousness but lack of other aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reprimand imposed by the IBP Board of Governors was deemed appropriate. The petition was denied, and the penalty of reprimand was affirmed.