Facts:

The case involves a verified complaint filed by Bienvenido T. Canlapan, a retired Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines - Mayon Albay Council, against Atty. William B. Balayo. The complaint was lodged on February 17, 2016, concerning an incident that occurred during a mandatory conference on June 26, 2014, at the office of Executive Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle, Jr. The conference was related to a money claim filed by Canlapan against the Mayon Council. During the conference, Atty. Balayo allegedly made a disrespectful remark towards Canlapan, stating, "Maski sampulo pang abogado darhon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo!" which translates to "Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!" This comment was made after Canlapan expressed his disadvantage in not having legal representation when he learned that Ervin O. Fajut, Chair of the Mayon Council, had brought a lawyer. Canlapan felt humiliated and disrespected, especia...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Complainant: Bienvenido T. Canlapan, a retired Scout Executive of the Boy Scout of the Philippines – Mayon Albay Council, who retired at age 70 after serving for 39 years.
• Respondent: Atty. William B. Balayo, a lawyer who acted in connection with a labor case involving the Mayon Council, though he was neither a party to the case nor formally authorized by the Council.

The Incident at the Mandatory Conference

• Date and Venue: June 26, 2014, at the mandatory conference before Executive Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle, Jr.
• Circumstances:
• The conference was convened in connection with a money claim filed by the complainant against the Mayon Council concerning accrued leave benefits.
• The complainant contended that he was placed at a disadvantage after learning that Fajut, Chair of the Mayon Council, would bring a lawyer (respondent) because he had no legal representation.

Alleged Misconduct by the Respondent

• Disrespectful Gestures and Statements:
• Respondent allegedly threw his arm toward the complainant in a menacing manner.
• He is accused of uttering the remark: “Maski sampulo pang abogado darhon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo!” (“Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!”).
• These actions were considered humiliating, especially given the complainant’s status as an elderly person.
• Context and Provocation:
• The complainant was reportedly agitated, having expected a brief and amicable settlement based on a prior Memorandum of Agreement dated June 7, 2014, wherein the Mayon Council agreed to pay him his accrued leave benefits of P487,000.00 on an installment basis.
• Tensions escalated when Fajut allegedly reneged on the agreement, purportedly due to the influence of the respondent.
• The respondent maintains that his actions were provoked by the complainant’s repeated, uncalled-for statements and persistent pestering during the proceedings.

Additional Developments in the Proceedings

• Role of Other Participants:
• Fajut, who had previously sought legal advice from the respondent on multiple occasions concerning legal matters for the Boy Scouts and the Mayon Council, invited the respondent to render his legal opinion on the notarization defect in the Memorandum of Agreement.
• Witnesses to the incident included Higino M. Mata (First Vice Chair of the Mayon Council) and employees of the National Labor Relations Commission, including a security guard.
• Legal Assistance and Action Taken:
• Respondent rendered a written legal opinion on June 10, 2014, after being consulted by Fajut regarding the legality of the Memorandum of Agreement and the accrued leave benefits matter.
• He later appeared on behalf of Fajut at the Labor Arbiter’s Office, specifically to point out the defective notarization of the Agreement.
• During subsequent meetings, including the Executive Committee meeting on June 30, 2014, respondent explained his legal opinion and answered questions from the Committee members.

Issue:

Disciplinary Misconduct

• Whether the respondent’s alleged act of disrespect—involving a menacing gesture and the remark targeting the complainant—constituted immoral conduct and was unbecoming of a lawyer.
• Whether his behavior violated Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution, obeying the law, and promoting respect for the law), Canon 7 (upholding the dignity and integrity of the legal profession), Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice), and Canon 8, Rule 8.01 (requiring respectful, restrained language).

Alleged Impediment to the Administration of Justice

• Whether the respondent’s participation in the conference and his subsequent actions were intended to impede the enforcement of the compromise agreement between the complainant and the Mayon Council.
• Whether his legal advices and statements, including those delivered in the Executive Committee meeting, improperly interfered with or delayed the proceedings in the labor case.

Scope and Context of the Respondent’s Legal Opinion

• Whether the respondent’s actions during and after the conference were a bona fide exercise of his duty to his client, Fajut, rather than an act stemming from any corrupt motive or a vendetta against the complainant.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)