Ingles v. Dela Serna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Gabriel Ingles charged respondent Atty. Victor dela Serna with violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge stemmed from statements made by respondent in a memorandum filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 5781. Respondent alleged that complainant and another lawyer were 'fooling Cattleya so that they can get their commission and overprice immediately' and were 'in cohorts with Tecson and Pizarras.' Complainant averred these statements were false, malicious, and uncalled for. Procedural History: Respondent argued that the proper forum should have been the RTC, not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Board of Governors, adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, found respondent guilty of violating Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 and recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law. Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming denial of substantive and procedural due process due to the lack of a formal investigation by the IBP. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the records and noted the absence of a formal investigation by the IBP.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Victor dela Serna violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the IBP committed a denial of substantive and procedural due process by recommending suspension without conducting a formal investigation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court remanded the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further proceedings, directing the IBP to conduct a formal investigation in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court acknowledged the IBP's finding that respondent's statements in the memorandum were uncalled for and potentially malicious. Rule 8.01 mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards his clients, co-counsel, and the courts. The statements made by respondent, accusing complainant and another lawyer of fooling their client and being in cohorts with opposing parties, without evident proof, could be construed as a violation of this rule. The IBP's resolution noted that respondent conducted himself with 'utter discourtesy by using uncalled for statements in his Defendants’ Memorandum without evident proofs of said accusations and using offensive and abusive language therein.' On the denial of substantive and procedural due process: The Court found merit in respondent's claim that a formal investigation was not conducted by the IBP. The Court reiterated the established procedure for disciplinary actions against members of the Bar, as outlined in Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. This procedure mandates a formal investigation where parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard, especially when the recommended penalty is as serious as suspension from the practice of law. The Court emphasized that these procedural requirements are crucial to ensure that the innocent are spared from wrongful condemnation and only the guilty are meted their just due. The absence of such a formal investigation, where the respondent could have fully defended himself, constituted a violation of his right to due process.
Main Doctrine
A formal investigation is indispensable before imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law on a member of the Bar, as required by the Rules of Court, to ensure due process.