G.R. No. A.C. No. 5763, December 3, 2002
Gabriel T. Ingles, complainant, vs. Atty. Victor dela Serna, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Gabriel Ingles filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Victor dela Serna for violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose from statements made by Atty. dela Serna in a memorandum he submitted as counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. 5781 (“Cattleya Land, Inc. vs. Carmelita Fudot Singpit and Atty. Narciso dela Serna”) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Bohol. In the memorandum, Atty. dela Serna alleged that Cattleya Land, Inc. could only blame its lawyers, Atty. Federico Cabilao and Atty. Gabriel Ingles, for being fooled in a property transaction, implying they were “fooling Cattleya” to get commissions and overprice, and that they were “in cohorts” with other parties. Complainant argued these statements were false, malicious, and uncalled for in a legal memorandum. Respondent countered that the proper forum for such allegations was the trial court, where complainant could have sought contempt charges. The IBP Board of Governors adopted a resolution (No. XV-2002-232) recommending Atty. dela Serna’s suspension from the practice of law for six months, based on a report finding he violated Rule 8.01 by using discourteous, unproven, and abusive language. Respondent appealed, claiming denial of due process as no formal investigation was conducted by the IBP before the resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) committed a procedural error by recommending the suspension of Atty. Victor dela Serna without conducting a formal investigation, thereby denying him due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the IBP resolution and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, disciplinary actions against lawyers require a formal investigation to ensure due process, especially when a penalty as severe as suspension is recommended. The IBP failed to conduct such an investigation, depriving respondent of the opportunity to defend himself, present witnesses, and be heard. Citing precedents (Cottam vs. Laysa and Baldomar vs. Paras), the Court outlined the mandatory procedure: if a complaint merits further inquiry, the IBP must refer it for formal investigation where both parties are heard, and ex parte proceedings may only occur if the respondent fails to appear despite notice. Since no investigation was held, the Court directed the IBP to conduct one promptly and in accordance with the rules. The administrative case was remanded for proper proceedings.