Saberon v. Larong
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Jose C. Saberon filed a petition before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and its majority stockholder, Alfredo Tan Bonpin, seeking the cancellation of the bank's registration and franchise. This petition arose from the bank's and/or Bonpin's alleged refusal to return checks and land titles given as security for a loan, despite the complainant's claim of full payment. Subsequently, respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses, characterizing the complainant's suit as "another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff [herein complainant Jose C. Saberon] and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain." Similar statements were made in his Rejoinder, leading the complainant to allege that these statements were "totally malicious, viscous and bereft of any factual or legal basis" and to file the present complaint for grave misconduct. 2. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and recommended a 30-day suspension. However, the IBP Board of Governors disapproved this recommendation and dismissed the case for lack of merit. Complainant appealed the IBP Board's Resolution to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Complainant challenged the IBP Board's Resolution for failing to comply with the procedural requirement of stating the facts and reasons on which it was based. He argued that the Investigating Commissioner's finding of grave misconduct was supported by evidence and that the recommended penalty should be disbarment due to the respondent's alleged evil motive and the offense involving moral turpitude. Respondent, in his Comment, argued that the use of the word "blackmail" was not abusive, that he was merely stating a fact, and that the allegations were absolutely privileged. He also pleaded for clemency, citing his limited experience in the profession.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong committed misconduct by using intemperate language in pleadings filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and whether such conduct constitutes grave misconduct. Whether the IBP Board of Governors' resolution dismissing the case was valid despite the lack of a written decision stating the factual and legal basis for the dismissal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for using intemperate language. He was fined P2,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition. The Court also found that the IBP Board of Governors failed to comply with the procedural requirement of stating the facts and reasons for its decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Misconduct): The Court held that respondent Atty. Fernando T. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language. It emphasized that while lawyers are expected to present their cases with vigor, this does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language, citing Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court clarified that the prohibition against abusive language applies even when pleadings are filed before administrative bodies like the BSP, drawing a parallel with rulings concerning the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court further explained that the privilege of statements made in pleadings does not extend to matters that are palpably wanting in relation to the subject of the controversy, finding the use of the term "blackmail" to be unnecessary and uncalled for in relation to the issues before the BSP, which concerned Bonpin's alleged alien citizenship and majority stockholding. On Issue 2 (IBP Board's Resolution): The Court found that the IBP Board of Governors failed to comply with Section 12(a) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which requires decisions to be in writing and to clearly and distinctly state the facts and reasons on which they are based. The Court noted that only a "Notice of Resolution" was transmitted, which merely stated the amendment and approval of the dismissal for lack of merit, without providing any factual or legal basis. This procedural infirmity was highlighted as a violation of a mandatory requirement that serves to inform the parties and assure them that the decision was reached through legal reasoning.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that lawyers are bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility even when filing pleadings before administrative bodies, not just courts. The use of abusive, offensive, or improper language, such as the term 'blackmail' in this case, violates Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 and Rule 11.03 of Canon 11, as it is unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues presented. The Court also reiterated that while utterances in pleadings are generally privileged, this protection is lost if the statements are not pertinent or relevant to the subject of inquiry, emphasizing the need for dignity and propriety in all professional dealings.