Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Romeo Adan and Cirila Adan (complainants) against Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda (respondent) for malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The events unfolded while respondent was the legal counsel for complainants in a criminal case for perjury, specifically in "People of the Philippines v. Romeo Adan & Cirila Adan," which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-14719 at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Calbayog City, Samar. On March 6, 2017, the complainants were scheduled for arraignment. Prior to this, on January 22, 2017, and March 4, 2017, they sent P4,290.00 and P3,050.00 to respondent for legal fees and transportation expenses, respectively.

The arraignment was put on hold due to a Motion to Quash filed by Tacorda, leading to a hearing set for March 13, 2017. Following this meeting, the complainants unexpectedly received a motion from Tacorda dated February 28, 2017, titled "Motion to

...

Facts:

Background and Representation

• Complainants Romeo Adan and Cirila Adan were facing a criminal perjury case (Criminal Case No. 16-14719) before the Municipal Trial Court in Calbayog City, Samar, for which they retained legal counsel.
• Respondent Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda, whose law office is in Intramuros, Manila, served as their counsel.

Payment and Fee Arrangement

• Complainants made two payments to the respondent: P4,290.00 on January 22, 2017 and P3,050.00 on March 4, 2017, meant to cover his professional fees and transportation expenses from Manila to Calbayog City.
• The respondent professed to engage clients on a “modified pro bono basis,” charging primarily for transportation expenses.

Scheduled Arraignment and Motion to Quash

• Complainants were scheduled to be arraigned on March 6, 2017, but the arraignment was held in abeyance due to a Motion to Quash previously filed by the respondent.
• A hearing on the Motion to Quash was set for March 13, 2017, which both the respondent and the complainants attended.

Filing of the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order

• Shortly after the March 13, 2017 hearing, complainants unexpectedly received a copy of a motion filed by the respondent titled “Motion to Issue Show Cause Order to Both of the Accused in Misleading the Court as to their Falsified Address,” which was dated February 28, 2017.
• In the motion, the respondent alleged that the complainants had provided a falsified address for the purpose of posting bail, claiming that the address supplied (that of Tarcisio Vibar) was “false and misleading.”
• The motion further insinuated that the complainants might have been evading court processes or absconding to avoid other liabilities, and noted recurrent issues with the payment of legal fees and expenses.

Inappropriate Communications and Conduct

• On March 17, 2017, after being contacted by complainants regarding the motion, the respondent sent text messages containing insulting and derogatory language (e.g., “MGA ESTAPADOR. MGA ULOL” and “SIRA ULO KAYO SI ROMY AT DIDANG”).
• Complainants alleged that the respondent, without notifying them, filed the motion which went contrary to their interests.
• It was further claimed that the respondent himself had suggested using the address of Tarcisio Vibar as he was familiar with Vibar’s residence and the complainants’ location in Catarman, Northern Samar.

Respondent’s Defense and Admissions

• In his Verified Answer dated June 13, 2017, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the payments but alleged that these amounts were insufficient to cover his travel and other expenses (noting, for instance, that P3,050.00 did not cover the P8,000.00 plane ticket from Manila to Calbayog City).
• He admitted to filing the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order, justifying it as a response to the complainants’ submission of an incorrect address for bail purposes.
• The respondent explained that his text messages were “a product of disappointment” following comments by the complainants that implicated him in facilitating their arrest.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

• An investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr., resulted in findings of misconduct against the respondent in a Report and Recommendation dated January 11, 2019.
• The IBP found that the filing of the motion was unwarranted, violated the Lawyer’s Oath, and contradicted the agreed “modified pro bono” fee arrangement.
• The investigation identified violations of Canon 15 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), emphasizing the respondent’s failure to show loyalty and integrity in his dealings with his clients.
• The IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated May 27, 2019, confirmed the findings and imposed a penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law along with a fine of P10,000.00 for the respondent’s non-compliance with procedural requirements before the IBP.

Issue:

Whether the respondent committed professional misconduct by:

• Filing a motion against his own clients without their knowledge or consent.
• Alleging that the complainants provided a falsified address for bail purposes.
• Engaging in unprofessional and derogatory communications with his clients.

• Whether such actions constitute a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, notably Canons 15 and 17, and Rules 14.04 and 20.04.

• Whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed, including suspension and a fine, are appropriate given the infractions and the gravity of the misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)