Ng v. Alar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar for using abusive and improper language in a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI) filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The MRMI contained accusations of copied decisions, "ignominious ignorance of the law," "grave abuse of discretion," and implied corruption against the NLRC Commissioners. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) investigated the complaint. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent Alar guilty of using improper and abusive language and recommended a suspension of not less than three months with a stern warning. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation with modification, imposing a reprimand with a stern warning and dismissing the counter-complaint against Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin Michael Cruz for lack of merit. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. While agreeing with the findings of misconduct against Atty. Alar, the Court found the penalty of reprimand insufficient and imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00 with a stern warning. The dismissal of the counter-complaint was affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive and improper language in his pleading before the NLRC. Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors on respondent Atty. Alar is commensurate with his offense, considering the nature of the violation. Whether the counter-complaint against Attys. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin Michael Cruz is meritorious, specifically regarding the filing of a new case, tax issues, and reduction in the number of claimants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar GUILTY of violating Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00 with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The Counter-Complaint against Attys. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin Michael Cruz was DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that respondent Atty. Alar clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His MRMI contained insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking its moral and intellectual integrity with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety, and lack of diligence. The Court emphasized that while lawyers have the right to criticize, such criticism must be respectful and dignified, not scandalous, offensive, or menacing. The use of unnecessary language that jeopardizes public esteem in courts and trust in judicial administration is proscribed. The Court reiterated that a lawyer, as an oath-bound servant of justice, must observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers, regardless of whether the body is a court or a quasi-judicial agency like the NLRC. The argument that the NLRC is not a court and its commissioners are not judges was deemed unavailing, as a lawyer remains a member of the Bar and is bound by ethical standards in all professional dealings. On the commensurability of the penalty: The Court found that the penalty of a mere reprimand with a stern warning imposed by the IBP Board of Governors was not proportionate to respondent's violation. The Court noted that the language used was not merely emphatic but abusive and offensive, eroding public perception of the legal profession. Therefore, a stiffer penalty of a fine in the amount of ₱5,000.00 was imposed, along with a stern warning against future misconduct. This reflects the Court's stance on maintaining the dignity and integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. On the counter-complaint against Attys. Paras and Cruz: The Court found no reason to disturb the IBP's findings that the counter-complaint against Attys. Paras and Cruz lacked merit. The alleged filing of a new case with the Office of the City Engineer was deemed to pertain to a different cause of action (nuisance structures) unrelated to the labor case before the NLRC. The Court noted that the City Engineer's decision was a separate matter that should be questioned in the proper forum. Regarding the tax issue, the Court accepted the respondents' assertion that they were not engaged as counsel for tax matters and thus could not be held accountable. Finally, the reduction in the number of claimants due to amicable settlements was viewed as a positive act of fostering settlement, not actionable misconduct, especially since there was no showing that the compromises were unfair. Therefore, the dismissal of the counter-complaint was proper.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's use of abusive, offensive, or improper language in pleadings, even against quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, violates Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting a penalty stiffer than a mere reprimand.