G.R. No. A.C. No. 6567 ; August 11, 2008
JOSE C. SABERON, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose C. Saberon filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong for alleged misconduct. The case stemmed from pleadings filed by Atty. Larong before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) in his capacity as counsel. In an Answer filed on behalf of his clients, Atty. Larong included allegations that the BSP case initiated by Saberon was part of a series of “blackmailing suits” intended for financial gain against his clients.
In a Decision dated April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court found Atty. Larong guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language. The Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000), which the respondent paid. The Court ruled that the ascription of “blackmail” was not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP, which were the alleged alien citizenship and majority stockholding of Alfredo Tan Bonpin in the Surigaonon Rural Bank. The Court emphasized that while lawyers are allowed latitude in their pleadings, they must not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety.
Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration. Complainant Saberon sought a finding of gross misconduct instead of simple misconduct. Respondent Atty. Larong, while accepting the fine, sought a declaration that the questioned allegations, though intemperate, constituted privileged communication—either absolutely privileged as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, or conditionally privileged under Article 354(1) of the Revised Penal Code as a private communication made in the performance of a legal duty.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its April 16, 2008 Decision by: (1) upgrading respondent’s liability from simple to gross misconduct, or (2) declaring that the imputation of “blackmail” in the BSP pleading is a privileged communication, thereby negating or mitigating administrative liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed its prior Decision.
Regarding complainant’s motion, the Court found no new or compelling grounds to warrant a modification. The arguments for gross misconduct had been amply discussed and adjudicated in the original Decision. The Court saw no reason to set aside its prior ruling that the use of intemperate language, while improper, constituted simple misconduct under the circumstances.
Regarding respondent’s motion, the Court rejected the invocation of privileged communication as a defense in this administrative proceeding. The Court held that the defense of absolute privilege (for statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial pleadings) was already considered and dismissed in the original Decision. The Court reiterated its finding that the allegation of “blackmail” was not pertinent or related to the issues before the BSP concerning the bank’s ownership and control. Thus, it fell outside the scope of protected communication, even if contained in an Answer. The Court further clarified that the alternative claim of conditional privilege under the Revised Penal Code is a defense peculiar to the criminal case for libel that respondent faces, which requires a different and higher quantum of proof. The administrative liability of a lawyer for violating the Canons of Professional Responsibility is separate and distinct from criminal liability for libel. A ruling in this administrative case is not conclusive of guilt or innocence in the pending libel case. The Court emphasized that the ethical duty of lawyers to avoid irrelevant and improper language in their pleadings stands, regardless of potential defenses in a parallel criminal suit.
*The denial of both motions signifies the Court’s final affirmation that: (1) the respondent’s actions constituted simple misconduct warranting a fine, and (2) the ethical obligations of lawyers under the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot be circumvented by claims of privilege when the statements made are irrelevant and intemperate.*