G.R. No. A.C. No. 13601 (Formerly CBD Case No. 20-6315). April 17, 2023.
Mary Ann B. Castro, Complainant, vs. Atty. Zeldania D.T. Soriano, Respondent.

FACTS

The complaint arose from a Legal Notice sent by respondent Atty. Zeldania D.T. Soriano to Spouses Ferdinand and Rowena Sendin, the buyers of two lots previously registered in the names of Constancio Castro and Rosario Castro-Mariano. The lots were sold by Alegria A. Castro’s late husband, Joselito S. Castro, through a Special Power of Attorney from the registered owners, allegedly with the assistance of complainant Mary Ann B. Castro. In the Legal Notice, respondent described complainant as the “mistress” of Joselito. Complainant alleged that this language was uncalled for, malicious, offensive, and violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or improper language. Respondent defended her use of the term, asserting it was factually accurate—Joselito was married to Alegria during his relationship with complainant—and relevant to the legal notice’s purpose: to clarify the extra-marital nature of the relationship, protect her client’s interests as the alleged true owner of the lots, and prompt the buyers to renegotiate the sale. The ponencia (Decision by Justice Dimaampao) dismissed the complaint, finding the statement was made in the context of privileged communication and was relevant to the subject matter.

ISSUE

Whether respondent’s use of the word “mistress” in the Legal Notice constitutes a violation of Canon 8 of the CPR, considering the doctrine of privileged communication.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion of Justice Caguioa agrees with the ponencia’s dismissal of the complaint. The opinion holds that respondent’s use of the word “mistress” was protected by the doctrine of privileged communication. The test for privileged communication is relevancy: the statement must be pertinent or material to the cause at hand. Applying a liberal rule, the Court resolves all doubts in favor of relevancy. Here, the term was relevant to the controversy over the sale of the lots. Respondent’s purpose was to inform the buyers of the extra-marital relationship between Joselito and complainant, which was pertinent to clarifying the legal status of the parties and defending her client’s claim of ownership. The statement was made in the performance of a legal duty to her client, without personal malice, and was based on facts provided by the client. Lawyers must be allowed some latitude in language to zealously advocate for their clients, within reasonable limits. Thus, respondent did not violate Canon 8 of the CPR.