G.R. No. A.C. No. 10949 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3915) August 14, 2019
Carmelita Canete, Complainant, vs. Atty. Artemio Puti, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Carmelita Canete filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Artemio Puti before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. Canete alleged that Atty. Puti, while representing a client in a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with double murder where her husband was a victim, engaged in unprofessional conduct. The specific allegations were: (1) appearing in court while intoxicated on numerous occasions; (2) making discourteous and inappropriate remarks against the private prosecutor (Atty. Arturo Tan) and public prosecutor; and (3) disrespecting the presiding judge.
The complaint cited transcript excerpts from hearings:
– On May 9, 2013, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan “bakla” in a condescending tone during an exchange.
– On February 14, 2013, he told Atty. Tan, “That is unethical. You behave like a lawyer.”
– On March 14, 2013, he remarked to the prosecutors, “Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo.”
– On May 22, 2013, he repeatedly accused the judge of abuse of discretion and bias, threatened to withdraw from the case and walk out, and stated, “I don’t want to think the Honorable Court is bias[ed].”
Atty. Puti denied appearing intoxicated, claimed he was provoked by Atty. Tan, and asserted he was merely zealously representing his client and calling out judicial bias. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found him liable for misconduct and recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a six-month suspension for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and specific Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Puti did not file a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Artemio Puti should be held administratively liable for his conduct during court hearings, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Court found Atty. Puti guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility but modified the penalty.
1. On appearing intoxicated: The allegation was not sufficiently proven despite claims of witnesses. Thus, no liability was attached to this ground.
2. On discourteous language toward colleagues: Atty. Puti’s use of the term “bakla” in a pejorative manner against Atty. Tan and his remark implying prosecutors were bribed (“Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo”) violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the CPR, which require courtesy, fairness, and avoidance of abusive language toward professional colleagues.
3. On disrespect toward the court: Atty. Puti’s accusations of abuse of discretion and bias against the judge, along with his threats to walk out, violated Canon 11, Rule 11.03, and Rule 11.04 of the CPR, which mandate respect for the courts, abstention from offensive behavior, and refraining from attributing unsupported motives to judges.
The Court held that while zeal in client representation is acceptable, it does not justify unprofessional conduct. However, considering the misconduct was simple rather than grave, and that this was Atty. Puti’s first administrative case in over three decades of practice, the six-month suspension was deemed too severe. Citing precedents where fines or reprimands were imposed for similar infractions (e.g., Saberon v. Lorong, Bacatan v. Dadula, Quilendrino v. Icasiano), the Court tempered the penalty.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Atty. Artemio Puti is found GUILTY of violating Canons 8 and 11, and Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. A copy of the Decision is ordered attached to his personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.