G.R. No. 215280 - Eizmendi, Jr. vs. Ferdez

Mary Ann B. Castro (complainant) filed a complaint for suspension and disbarment against Atty. Zeldania D.T. Soriano (respondent) alleging violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The controversy arose from a Legal Notice dated September 2, 2019, which the respondent prepared on behalf of her client, Alegria A. Castro, asserting that certain parcels of land belonged to Alegria by virtue of a written instrument of sale.
In the Legal Notice, the respondent described complainant as the “mistress” of Joselito S. Castro, Joselito being Alegria’s estranged husband, and implied that complainant was involved in an improper property transaction.

Complainant argued that the term “mistress” was uncalled for and injurious, noting that she was in fact legally married to Joselito, and claimed that the respondent’s language served to malign her character.
In response, complainant filed both a libel complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Isabela and submitted the Complaint-Affidavit to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
The complainant contended that the respondent had dragged her, without justification, into a property dispute in which she had no involvement.

The respondent admitted to using the word “mistress” but defended its use as necessary to describe the extra-marital relationship between Joselito and the complainant in the context of her legal duty.
In her Verified Answer, the respondent asserted that the language was relevant to the subject matter of the Legal Notice, which aimed to inform the Spouses Sendin about the proper party (Alegria) authorized to negotiate the sale of the disputed properties.
The respondent further supported her position by presenting evidence—such as sworn statements and documents—to establish the extramarital nature of the relationship and the alleged invalidity of the complainant’s marital status with Joselito.

Under directives issued in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, both parties submitted their verified position papers, and the case was eventually submitted for resolution.
The IBP-CBD, after analyzing the submissions and evidence, recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against the respondent, finding no malicious intent in her language.
However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation by deeming the respondent’s use of the term “mistress” as deplorable and unprofessional, and they recommended imposing a fine of P2,000.00 with a stern warning against future similar actions.
The case also generated separate concurring and dissenting opinions:

The concurring opinion agreed with dismissing the complaint, emphasizing the relevance and privileged nature of the communication.
The dissenting opinion maintained that the characterization was extraneous to the property dispute and violated the standards of professional courtesy required of lawyers.

Whether the respondent, in using the term “mistress” in her Legal Notice, violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility—specifically Canons 7 and 8, and Rule 8.01 regarding the use of abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language.

Whether the respondent’s statement, though potentially derogatory, was made in the performance of her legal duty and was materially relevant to the property dispute, thus falling within the protection of the doctrine of privileged communication.

Whether the complainant was able to establish by substantial evidence that the respondent acted with malicious intent or in bad faith in her use of the term “mistress.”