A.C. No. 8789 - Cabarroguis vs. Basa

Complainant Atty. Honesto Ancheta Cabarroguis (Atty. Cabarroguis) filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Danilo A. Basa (Atty. Basa) before the Supreme Court.
Atty. Cabarroguis accused Atty. Basa of violating several Canons and Rules under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Canon 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.03), Canon 8 (Rule 8.01), Canon 10, Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Rule 15.05, and Rule 19.01.

Atty. Cabarroguis was the retained counsel of Godofredo V. Cirineo, Jr. (Godofredo) who filed an estafa case against Erlinda Basa-Cirineo (Erlinda), Atty. Basa’s sister-in-law, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 11.
Atty. Basa represented Erlinda.

After eight years of trial, Atty. Basa filed a motion for inhibition against the presiding judge (Judge Renato Fuentes). This resulted in Judge Fuentes inhibiting himself. Subsequently, other judges to whom the case was raffled inhibited themselves as well, causing delays.
Atty. Cabarroguis alleged that this was a tactic by Atty. Basa to delay proceedings.

Atty. Basa allegedly showed immaturity and disrespect by intentionally misspelling Atty. Cabarroguis’ first name in an omnibus motion (“HONESTo”) and in a demand letter (“Honest”).
Atty. Cabarroguis claimed these acts denigrated and belittled him.

Atty. Basa filed numerous administrative, civil, and criminal cases against Atty. Cabarroguis, allegedly as retaliation for the estafa case against Erlinda.
Some notable cases include:

Multiple administrative complaints for falsification and perjury (CBD-ADM and I.S. cases).
Several criminal cases for falsification and perjury.
A civil case for damages and attorney’s fees.

Atty. Cabarroguis argued these cases were malicious and unfounded, highlighting that the complaints began after he instituted the estafa case.

Atty. Basa contended that some administrative cases against Atty. Cabarroguis were decided against him (one-year suspensions and admonition).
He clarified that not all complaints were personally filed by him but by his clients, such as the Molabolas and Erlinda, and that multiple complaints arose from different causes of action.
He maintained the disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Cabarroguis was motivated by vengeance, and he exercised his right to defend himself.

Atty. Cabarroguis filed supplemental complaints alleging further retaliatory actions by Atty. Basa, including newly filed complaints and motions.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated, and the Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. Basa due to harassing tactics and filing baseless cases aimed to vex Atty. Cabarroguis.
The IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially adopted this recommendation.
After motions for reconsideration, IBP-BOG reversed itself, stating no showing of bad faith by Atty. Basa, emphasizing that multiple complaints for falsification may arise from distinct acts.
Atty. Cabarroguis then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines wrongful dismissed the complaint against Atty. Basa.
Whether Atty. Basa committed violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR by:

Filing baseless, multiple criminal and administrative complaints against Atty. Cabarroguis.
Engaging in harassing and dilatory tactics, including filing a motion for inhibition after eight years of trial.
Disrespecting Atty. Cabarroguis by misspelling his name in court documents.