AC 7252; (November, 2006) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 7252; November 22, 2006
Johnny Ng, Complainant, vs. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment case against Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, the counsel for the opposing party in a labor case. The complaint centered on a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI) filed by respondent before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In this motion, respondent used intemperate, offensive, and disrespectful language against the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC Commissioners. He accused them of “ignominious ignorance of the law,” acting with “malice,” having “impaired vision,” and being a “shame to the NLRC.” He also insinuated corruption with phrases like “not to some people in the NLRC in part” and invented a derogatory “Special Dinopol Rule.”
In his defense, Atty. Alar argued the complaint was a harassment tactic. He contended that the Code of Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily before the NLRC and that the NLRC’s own rules provide adequate sanctions for lawyerly misconduct, implying the IBP lacked jurisdiction. He also filed a counter-complaint against the complainant’s lawyers, Attys. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Elvin Michael Cruz, alleging they induced his clients to sign quitclaims and waivers.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Benjamin C. Alar violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through his conduct in the pleadings filed before the NLRC.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Alar is guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ modified resolution, reprimanding him with a stern warning. The Court firmly rejected his defense regarding the IBP’s jurisdiction and the applicability of ethical rules. A lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession is unwavering and applies to all forums, including quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC. The Code of Professional Responsibility governs all lawyers without exception.
The legal logic is clear: Canon 8 mandates lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward the courts. Canon 11 requires them to observe and maintain respect for the courts. Respondent’s motion, replete with sarcasm, insulting innuendo, and direct attacks on the intelligence, honesty, and integrity of the adjudicators, constituted a clear violation of these canons. Such language transcends vigorous advocacy and becomes an affront to the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the legal system. The counter-complaint against Attys. Paras and Cruz was correctly dismissed for lack of merit, as the evidence failed to establish any actionable misconduct on their part in handling the compromise agreements. The Court’s ruling reinforces that while lawyers must defend their clients’ rights with zeal, they must do so within the bounds of propriety and with due respect to judicial institutions.