G.R. No. A.C. No. 11639, February 05, 2020
Roselyn S. Parks, Complainant, v. Atty. Joaquin L. Misa, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Roselyn S. Parks alleged that respondent Atty. Joaquin L. Misa, Jr., in a counter-affidavit he filed in a criminal case for Malicious Mischief and Less Serious Physical Injuries filed by Roselyn’s father, Rosendo T. Suniega, against Atty. Misa and others, made defamatory statements against her. The statements included calling Roselyn a “known DRUG ADDICT and a FRAUD” and making insinuations about her “fixed marriage.” Roselyn was not a party to the criminal complaint filed by her father. She claimed these remarks, made in a pleading submitted to the prosecutor, were irrelevant to the case and intended to insult, dishonor, and humiliate her, demonstrating a lack of moral character and violating his oath and the Rules of Court. Atty. Misa admitted filing the counter-affidavit but defended the statements as privileged, relevant, and material to the cause with which he was charged, attributing them to Roselyn’s behavior on the night in question.

ISSUE

Did Atty. Misa violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by his use of derogatory and defamatory language against Roselyn in his counter-affidavit?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found Atty. Misa guilty of violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court concurred with the Investigating Commissioner’s finding that the defamatory remarks in the counter-affidavit, directed at Roselyn who was not a party to the case, were irrelevant to the criminal investigation and were made with the clear intention to humiliate or insult. The language used was abusive, offensive, and improper, contrary to the duty of a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy and to abstain from scandalous or offensive language before the Courts. Atty. Misa was ADMONISHED to refrain from using such language in his pleadings and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.