Saberon v. Larong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose C. Saberon filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to hold respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong guilty of gross misconduct for ascribing blackmail to the complainant in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Procedural History: The Supreme Court previously issued a Decision on April 16, 2008. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. The Petition: Complainant sought to elevate the finding of simple misconduct to gross misconduct. Respondent sought to have the allegations of blackmail in his pleadings declared as privileged communication.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its Decision dated April 16, 2008. Whether the allegations of blackmail made by respondent in pleadings before the BSP constitute gross misconduct. Whether the allegations of blackmail made by respondent in pleadings before the BSP are protected by privileged communication.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied both the complainant's and respondent's motions for reconsideration. The Court affirmed its previous ruling that the ascription of "blackmail" in the respondent's Answer was not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP. The Court also reiterated that the defense of privileged communication is not applicable in the present administrative case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration: The arguments raised by the complainant were already sufficiently discussed and ruled upon in the Court's Decision sought to be reconsidered. No new grounds were presented to warrant setting aside the Decision. The Court found no reason to elevate the finding of simple misconduct to gross misconduct based on the existing records. On the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration: The respondent's contention that the allegations of blackmail were privileged communication was already addressed. The Court reiterated its finding that the ascription of "blackmail" in the Answer was not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP, which concerned the alleged alien citizenship and majority stockholding of Alfredo Tan Bonpin in the Surigaonon Rural Bank. Lawyers are allowed latitude in making remarks in pleadings but should not go beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety. This ruling stands regardless of whether the statements were in the nature of a counter-complaint or counterclaim. On the Respondent's Alternative Contention: The respondent alternatively argued that the allegations fell under conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communication. However, the Court clarified that the invocation of the rule of privileged communication in this administrative matter is misplaced. This defense is primarily for criminal cases of libel, which require a different and higher quantum of evidence. The Court's ruling on administrative liability is not conclusive of guilt or innocence in the libel case. Therefore, the respondent's submission that the statements were privileged communication was denied.
Main Doctrine
The defense of privileged communication is peculiar to criminal cases for libel and depends on a different and higher quantum of evidence than that required in administrative cases concerning the misconduct of lawyers. Allegations of blackmail in pleadings must be legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matter of the inquiry.