G.R. No. A.M. No. 2343 July 30, 1982
Facundo Lubiano, complainant, vs. Joel G. Gordolla, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Facundo Lubiano sought the disbarment of Atty. Joel G. Gordolla for allegedly using intemperate and disrespectful language in a motion for reconsideration filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The motion, filed by respondent as counsel for Robina Farms, Inc., contained statements describing a monetary award to the complainant as “ill-gotten wealth,” the NLRC’s decision as “unknowing,” and the sheriff’s office as a “partner in ‘crime'” in enforcing the writ of execution.
The complainant argued that such language violated the lawyer’s duty to maintain a respectful attitude toward the court and to treat adverse parties with fairness. The respondent defended his statements by attributing them to his zeal in advocating for his client and by claiming they constituted absolutely privileged communication relevant to the case, thus insulating him from liability.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent lawyer’s use of intemperate and disrespectful language in a pleading filed with a quasi-judicial body constitutes a violation of his professional duties warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Joel G. Gordolla administratively liable, though not to the extent of disbarment. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s language, whether oral or written, must always be respectful and restrained to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. This duty is mandated by the Canons of Professional Ethics and Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Court held that the respondent’s specific phrases—labeling a lawful award as “ill-gotten wealth,” the NLRC’s decision as “unknowing,” and law enforcement officers as partners in crime—clearly transgressed the bounds of propriety and civility expected of a member of the Bar. His defense of zealous advocacy was rejected, as a lawyer’s primary duty is to the administration of justice, which must temper even enthusiastic representation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of absolute privileged communication, which may shield a lawyer from civil or criminal suit for pertinent statements in pleadings, does not exempt him from the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over professional conduct. A lawyer remains subject to the Court’s supervisory power to ensure adherence to ethical standards.
Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) on the respondent, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts would be met with more severe sanctions.