A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997
Sophia Alawi, complainant, vs. Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court VI, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City, respondent.

FACTS

Sophia Alawi, a sales representative for a real estate company, facilitated a housing purchase and loan for her former classmate, respondent Ashary Alauya, a Clerk of Court. Subsequently, Alauya sent letters to the company and the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) seeking to rescind the contract and cancel his loan. In these letters, he accused Alawi of gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence, labeling her an “unscrupulous swindler” and “forger.” He also requested the stoppage of salary deductions for the loan. Alauya’s letter to the company was sent using an envelope marked “Free Postage – PD 26,” and he signed his letters using the title “Attorney.”
Alawi filed an administrative complaint, accusing Alauya of making libelous charges, causing undue injury to her reputation, unauthorized use of the franking privilege, and usurping the title of “Attorney.” She asserted his allegations were baseless and demanded disciplinary action. In his defense, Alauya questioned the authority of the investigating officer and claimed his letters were a legitimate exercise of his right to seek redress for a fraudulent contract.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ashary M. Alauya is administratively liable for his conduct in sending the letters and using the title “Attorney.”

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that while Alauya had the right to complain about his contractual grievances, the manner and language he employed were improper for a judicial officer. His letters contained excessively intemperate, insulting, and virulent language, such as calling Alawi a “swindler” and “forger” without sufficient evidentiary basis. This conduct violated the standard that public officials must act with courtesy and fairness, avoiding conduct that erodes public respect for the judiciary. Such behavior constitutes conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.
Regarding the title “Attorney,” the Court ruled that only members of the Philippine Bar admitted under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are authorized to use it. While Shari’a lawyers are members of a special bar, they are not regular members of the Philippine Bar entitled to use the title “Attorney” in general contexts. Alauya’s use of the title therefore constituted usurpation. On the charge of unauthorized use of the franking privilege, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the accusation. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Alauya for his intemperate language and usurpation of title, warning that future misconduct would be dealt with more severely.