Alcantara v. Pefianco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, District Public Attorney, alleged that respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco used improper and offensive language, threatened, and attempted to assault him. The incident occurred at the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) in San Jose, Antique. While Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client, a woman approached them in tears. Complainant suggested Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably. Respondent Atty. Pefianco then shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, making remarks about settling the case and imprisoning the client. Complainant asked respondent to calm down, but respondent continued to scold Atty. Salvani and his client. Complainant then approached respondent to ask him to leave Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent initially listened but resumed shouting. Complainant went into his office and posted a notice prohibiting interference. Upon returning, complainant heard respondent making derogatory remarks about him. Respondent then pointed his finger at complainant and repeated the remarks. Complainant confronted respondent, advising civility or departure. Respondent resented this, hurled invectives, and assumed a menacing stance. A commotion ensued, and guards were called. Respondent attempted to attack complainant, shouting an insult, but was restrained by the guards. Procedural History: The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of the alleged acts and recommended a reprimand and warning. The Supreme Court found the recommendation well-taken. The Petition: The complaint was filed against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Mariano Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the standards of professional conduct by using offensive language and attempting to assault a fellow lawyer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Mariano Pefianco GUILTY of violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering it was his first offense, he was FINED P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning against future similar actions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the evidence clearly showed respondent Pefianco provoked the incident by shouting and hurling invectives at his colleagues. Under Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), lawyers are mandated to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their professional colleagues at all times. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's meddling in a matter where he had no right to interfere—specifically, demanding an explanation for why a case was being settled—is improper behavior. Even if respondent felt a sense of moral righteousness due to the widow's situation, such feelings did not grant him the license to berate other lawyers or attempt physical violence. Public behavior of this nature brings down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erodes the respect necessary for the administration of justice. The Court noted that an injustice cannot be righted by another injustice, and Pefianco's failure to observe civility necessitated disciplinary sanction, even as a first-time offender.
Main Doctrine
Lawyers are bound by Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their fellow lawyers and to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. Public behavior that brings down the legal profession in public estimation and erodes public respect is unacceptable, regardless of any perceived moral righteousness.