G.R. No. A.C. No. 12631, July 08, 2020
Atty. Fernando P. Perito, Complainant, vs. Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Ryan R. Besid, Atty. Richie L. Tiblani, and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit, Respondents.

FACTS

Atty. Fernando P. Perito, counsel for the accused in a kidnapping case (People v. Josephine and Jason Bracamonte), filed a disbarment complaint against respondents. Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina and Atty. Ryan R. Besid acted as private prosecutors in that case. After the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the charge against the Bracamontes, Attys. Baterina and Besid filed a Motion for Reconsideration and later a Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) provisionally dismissed the criminal case due to the private complainant’s non-appearance, prompting Attys. Baterina and Besid to file a motion for reconsideration and, after its denial, a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in the name of Dulce Hernandez, the mother of the alleged victim.
Atty. Perito alleged that Attys. Baterina and Besid: (1) pursued a baseless and dismissed case to persecute the Bracamontes; (2) filed a baseless disbarment complaint against him (docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2468) based merely on suspicion that he was behind a prior disbarment case (A.C. No. 7929) filed against them by the Bracamontes; (3) engaged in misrepresentation by using Dulce Hernandez as petitioner in the CA petition despite her not being an original complainant and the victim having reached majority age; (4) used demeaning language against him; and (5) failed to uphold the dignity of the court by imputing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC judge. Atty. Perito also impleaded Attys. Richie L. Tiblani and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit for allegedly conspiring in filing the disbarment case against him.
Respondents countered that the legal remedies they pursued (petition for review, certiorari) were lawful and necessary to advance their client’s interests. They asserted that Dulce Hernandez could properly file the petition as the complainant was a minor when the crime was committed, and that imputing grave abuse of discretion was necessary for a certiorari petition under Rule 65. They also argued that Attys. Tiblani and Pammit’s representation of Atty. Baterina in the disbarment cases was not a ground for disbarment.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found no violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by respondents and recommended dismissal, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for disbarment. The Court held that Atty. Perito failed to present substantial evidence that respondents violated the CPR. The legal remedies pursued by Attys. Baterina and Besid (petition for review, certiorari) were sanctioned by applicable rules (DOJ Circular No. 70 and the Rules of Court) and were undertaken to fulfill their duties to their client under Canons 17 and 19 of the CPR. Their imputation of grave abuse of discretion against the RTC judge was necessary to substantiate their certiorari petition and did not violate Rule 11.03, Canon 11. Attys. Tiblani and Pammit were merely protecting Atty. Baterina’s interests by representing him in the disbarment cases, which is within their professional duties. The Court found no gross misconduct, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, or grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court cautioned the lawyers involved to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor as required by Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the CPR, and to avoid using abusive language or harassing tactics against opposing counsel.