G.R. No. A.C. No. 8067, March 14, 2023
Philippine National Bank, Complainant, vs. Atty. Henry S. Oaminal, Respondent.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Henry S. Oaminal for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. PNB had earlier filed criminal cases against Atty. Oaminal for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and estafa. After several judges inhibited themselves, all eight criminal cases were raffled to Judge Rico A. Tan. Atty. Oaminal moved for Judge Tan’s inhibition due to a pending administrative case he had filed against the judge, but the motion was denied. On July 28, 2008, Judge Tan issued a warrant for Atty. Oaminal’s arrest for failure to appear at arraignment. Atty. Oaminal filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion. During the hearing on this motion on August 1, 2008, Atty. Oaminal arrived at the courtroom accompanied by Clarin, Misamis Occidental Mayor David Navarro (the nephew of Atty. Oaminal’s wife) and the mayor’s five armed bodyguards. The bodyguards refused to deposit their firearms and sat by the courtroom door within Judge Tan’s line of sight. On August 5, 2008, Judge Tan set aside the arrest warrant but noted the presence of the armed bodyguards drastically changed the court’s atmosphere and caused him great stress, dangerous due to his heart condition. The next day, Judge Tan voluntarily inhibited himself from all cases against Atty. Oaminal, citing his health and the presence of the armed men, and recommended transferring the venue to Manila. The Supreme Court later granted the transfer to Quezon City. PNB filed the disbarment complaint based on these events. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors initially recommended admonition but later dismissed the complaint, citing an Ombudsman resolution that found insufficient evidence to hold Atty. Oaminal responsible for any menacing effect.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established respondent Atty. Henry S. Oaminal’s responsibility for the menacing behavior that transpired in court, in violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the IBP Board of Governors’ Extended Resolution. The Court found Atty. Oaminal guilty of violating Canon 11, specifically Rule 11.03, which requires a lawyer to abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing behavior before the Courts. The Court gave weight to Judge Tan’s credible narration of the incident, noting the urgency with which he acted afterward. The Court held that direct evidence of a request to intimidate was unnecessary. Given the circumstances—Atty. Oaminal was seeking Judge Tan’s inhibition, and Mayor Navarro had no legitimate reason to be present in the courtroom—the intimidation was clear. Any lawyer should have been aware of the effect of bringing a mayor and his armed security to court. Canon 11 requires lawyers not only to observe respect for courts but also to insist on similar conduct from others. Atty. Oaminal was suspended from the practice of law for three years.