G.R. No. 6567, April 16, 2008
Jose C. Saberon, complainant, vs. Atty. Fernando T. Larong, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose C. Saberon filed a Petition before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and its majority stockholder, Alfredo Tan Bonpin, seeking the cancellation of the bank’s registration and franchise. The Petition alleged that the bank and Bonpin refused to return checks and land titles securing a loan obtained by Saberon’s wife, despite the loan’s full payment. Respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong, as in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary for the bank, filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses. In this pleading, Larong characterized Saberon’s Petition as “another in the series of blackmail suits” filed to coerce the bank and Bonpin for financial gain. He reiterated this characterization in a subsequent Rejoinder.
Saberon filed the present administrative complaint, charging Larong with grave misconduct for using abusive and offensive language. He contended that his BSP Petition was a legitimate exercise of his right to seek redress and that Larong, fully aware the loan was paid, aided in inflicting damages by withholding the collaterals. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Larong culpable of gross misconduct and recommended a 30-day suspension. However, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit, prompting Saberon’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Fernando T. Larong violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using the term “blackmail” in his pleadings, thereby committing professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Larong guilty of violating Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and must represent them with zeal, this duty is circumscribed by the attorney’s oath to conduct oneself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward the courts and all parties. The use of intemperate language, such as branding a judicial or quasi-judicial action as “blackmail” without a factual or legal basis, is impermissible.
The Court held that Larong’s characterization of Saberon’s Petition as a “blackmail suit” was an irrelevant, unnecessary, and unfounded personal attack. It served no purpose other than to insult the complainant and did not contribute to the legal merits of his client’s defense. Such language overstepped the bounds of professional advocacy and degraded the dignity of the legal profession. The defense that the statement was a privileged allegation in a pleading was rejected, as the privilege does not extend to scurrilous, abusive, or intemperate statements. Considering Larong’s admission of being a young lawyer at the time and his expression of remorse, the Court modified the penalty. Atty. Fernando T. Larong was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.