Facts:

This case involves Sophia Alawi, the complainant, and Ashari M. Alauya, the respondent and Clerk of Court VI of the Shari'a District Court in Marawi City. Alawi, employed as a sales representative for E. B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., a real estate company based in Davao City, had a prior friendship with Alauya, who executed a contract for the purchase of a housing unit through Alawi's agency. Alauya later secured a housing loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) in connection with this purchase. However, on December 15, 1995, Alauya submitted a letter to the president of Villarosa & Co., intending to terminate the contract due to alleged misrepresentation and deceit by Alawi. He detailed accusations against Alawi, claiming her actions rendered the contract void ab initio and sought mutual rescission of the agreement. Alauya also wrote to NHMFC, requesting the cancellation of his housing loan connected to the contract.

Subsequently,

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Sophia Alawi served as the sales representative (or coordinator) for E. B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., a real estate company based in Davao City.
• Ashary M. Alauya was the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City.
• The parties were classmates and friends, establishing a background of personal acquaintance.

The Housing Contract and Loan

• Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments of a housing unit owned by Villarosa & Co.
• In connection with the contract, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) granted Alauya a housing loan payable through salary deductions.

Alauya’s Notice of Termination and Allegations

• On December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to Villarosa & Co. formally terminating the contract.
• He claimed that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence by Sophia Alawi.
• The letter detailed that the contract was void ab initio due to the alleged illegal and unauthorized acts of the sales agent, rendering it an “onerous contract” detrimental to his rights and interests.
• Concurrently, on the same day, Alauya sent a letter to the Vice-President of Villarosa & Co. and to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President of the Credit & Collection Group of NHMFC, repudiating the contract and requesting the cancellation of his housing loan.
• In his correspondence to NHMFC, he reiterated that his consent was vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence.
• He insisted on the cancellation of salary deductions related to the housing loan and explained that the contract was manipulated without his authority or true consent.
• Subsequent Communications
• Alauya sent further letters on February 21, April 15, and May 3, 1996, reiterating his call for cancellation of the housing loan.
• On January 18, 1996, he also communicated with court officials (the Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office and the Chief of the Finance Division) to stop the salary deductions connected with the loan.

The Complaint Filed by Sophia Alawi

• On January 25, 1996, Sophia Alawi filed a verified complaint with the Court, appending a copy of Alauya’s December 15 letter and the envelope marked “Free Postage a PD 26.”
• In her complaint, she alleged that Alauya committed:
• Malicious and libelous imputation of charges without solid grounds, stemming from manifest ignorance and evident bad faith.
• Causing undue injury to her honor and blemishing her established reputation.
• Unauthorized enjoyment of free postage privileges.
• Usurpation of the title “attorney,” a title reserved for members of the Philippine Bar.
• She emphasized that her dealings had been regular and transparent, contrasting with Alauya’s allegations which she characterized as unfounded and irresponsible.

Alauya’s Response and Defense

• Alauya initially submitted a “Preliminary Comment” questioning the authority of the Assistant Division Clerk of Court to require his explanation.
• He argued that such power was vested only in the District Judge, Court Administrator, or Chief Justice.
• He insinuated a “strong link” between Ms. Alawi and the clerk’s office.
• In subsequent communications, Alauya:
• Requested a copy of the complaint for him to address it properly.
• Maintained that his actions were in defense of his rights and that he had acted in good faith.
• Detailed his suffering—mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and financial loss (noting that P26,028.60 had been deducted in six months).
• Claimed that the contract was manipulated by Alawi, including allegations that she had induced him to sign a blank contract, forged his signature on critical documents, and mishandled pertinent documents such as those regarding the down payment and key receipt.
• Justified his occasional use of the title “attorney” by equating it lexically to “counsellor-at-law,” arguing it was less confusing locally than “counsellor” (although he admitted not to be a lawyer in the conventional sense).
• Asserted that any mix-up with official postage (e.g., the marking “Free Postage a PD 26”) was due to inadvertent error or honest mistake by his subordinate.

Administrative and Ethical Considerations

• The case contained details regarding the court’s notice system, as the resolution notice was signed by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant Division Clerk of Court.
• The Court eventually referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
• Underlying the dispute are concerns about the use of offensive language in official communications and adherence to ethical standards set for public officials and employees, particularly those involved in the administration of justice.

Issue:

Whether Alauya’s use of excessively intemperate, insulting, or virulent language in his correspondence and comments constitutes misconduct unbefitting a judicial officer.

• The issue centers on the propriety of his public outbursts and the consequent impact on his reputation as a public official.

Whether his alleged misuse of the title “attorney” is justified given his status as a member of the Shari’a Bar, and whether such use amounts to usurpation of a title reserved for full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar.

• The legal question involves the qualifications required to use the title “attorney” and the implications of using such a title without membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Whether the allegations of abuse regarding the franking (free postage) privilege, as well as the other charges leveled against him regarding malice and libel, are substantiated by evidence.

• The determination includes weighing Alauya’s defense that any observed irregularities were inadvertent or done in defense of his rights against the allegations raised by Alawi.

• Whether the manner in which Alauya pursued his claim of grievance, despite facing personal and financial injury, conforms to the required standard of conduct expected of public officials and judicial employees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)