A.C. No. 10949 - Canete vs. Puti

Complainant: Carmelita Canete, widow of a victim in a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with double murder filed against respondent’s client.
Respondent: Atty. Artemio Puti, defense counsel in said criminal case; formerly a public prosecutor.

Respondent appeared in court while intoxicated on numerous occasions, allegedly witnessed by court personnel, co-counsel, and opposing counsel.
Respondent used discourteous, abusive, and inappropriate language toward private prosecutor Atty. Arturo Tan and public prosecutors.
Respondent disrespected the presiding judge through insults, imputations of bias, and threats to walk out/withdraw in open court.

May 9, 2013 hearing (re: “bakla” remark to Atty. Tan): Respondent said, “Ako muna, hijo. Ikaw naman para kang bakla,” in a condescending manner during an exchange over documentary confrontations.
February 14, 2013 hearing (disrespect to Atty. Tan): Respondent told opposing counsel, “That is unethical. You behave like a lawyer,” while interrupting argument and reacting to objections.
March 14, 2013 hearing (against public prosecutors): Respondent remarked, “Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo,” insinuating bribery or improper consideration; also referred sarcastically to “the handsome public prosecutor.”
May 22, 2013 hearing (toward the judge): Respondent repeatedly objected, accused the judge of “abuse of discretion,” implied bias, and threatened: “If the Court will allow [the question], I will withdraw… I will walk out,” and “I am going to think the Honorable Court is biased.”

Categorical denial of appearing intoxicated; alleged absence of proof.
Claimed provocation by Atty. Tan, including supposed threats.
Justified his conduct as zealous advocacy and a duty to call out perceived judicial bias.

Found respondent liable for misconduct and violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Noted failure to observe courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues; uncalled-for imputations of bias to the judge; and disrespect in allegedly appearing at hearings intoxicated.
Recommended suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

Adopted the findings but modified the penalty: suspension reduced to six (6) months.
Cited violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 8, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03, Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR.

No motion for reconsideration: Respondent received the IBP Resolution but did not seek reconsideration.

The Court took cognizance and reviewed the IBP’s findings and recommended penalty.
The Court evaluated each alleged ground: intoxication, insults to prosecutors, and disrespect toward the judge, relying primarily on the TSNs.

Whether the allegation that respondent appeared in court hearings while intoxicated was sufficiently proven to warrant administrative liability.

Whether respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, or improper language toward private and public prosecutors.

Whether respondent violated Canon 11 and Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by showing disrespect to the court, using scandalous or menacing language, and attributing improper motives or bias to the judge without basis.

What is the appropriate penalty, if any, taking into account the nature of the infractions, jurisprudence on sanctions for intemperate language and disrespect, and respondent’s circumstances.