AC 7045; (September, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 7045. September 05, 2016
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The complainant law firm represented Eliseo Soriano in a libel case. During a hearing on October 11, 2005, the firm moved to suspend Soriano’s arraignment, citing a Petition for Review filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) the previous day. The firm presented an extra copy but not the original stamped-received copy, which they claimed was with their messenger. The trial court denied the motion and proceeded with the arraignment. Subsequently, the law firm filed a Motion for Inhibition against the judge.
In their “Vehement Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition” and a later pleading, respondents, counsel for the opposing party, accused the complainant and its lawyers of antedating the filing or mailing of the DOJ Petition. They argued that if the petition was truly filed on October 10, the stamped copy should have been presented in court on October 11. This accusation was based on their speculation and contemplation of the events, without any evidence or prior verification from the DOJ.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Attys. Lazaro and Morta are administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for accusing opposing counsel of antedating a court pleading without proof.
RULING
Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and held that respondents violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The legal logic is anchored on the duty of lawyers to maintain courtesy, fairness, and candor. While lawyers have latitude in their arguments, their language must remain respectful and their accusations must have a factual basis.
The Court found that respondents’ accusation of antedating was a serious imputation of deceit and falsification made recklessly. They presented no evidence and conducted no verification with the DOJ before making the claim. Such an allegation, based purely on speculation, transcends the bounds of zealous advocacy and becomes an abusive and offensive tactic against professional colleagues, breaching Canon 8. Furthermore, making such an unfounded assertion in a court pleading also violates the lawyer’s duty of candor and good faith to the court under Canon 10. The defense of privileged communication does not apply, as it does not shield offensive, abusive, or unsupported allegations. The Court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one month, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. This sanction underscores that professional courtesy and factual rigor are indispensable to the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal profession.