G.R. No. 202920 - Chua vs. Executive Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila

Ferdinand A. Cruz, a fourth-year law student, instituted several cases against his neighbors since late 2001.
He appeared personally in these cases without an attorney.

Respondent was counsel for Cruz’s neighbors.
During a hearing on January 14, 2002, before RTC Branch 112, Pasay City, Judge Caridad Cuerdo presiding, a confrontation occurred:

Respondent urged the court to inquire if Cruz was a lawyer, implying misrepresentation.
When Cruz denied being a lawyer, respondent, raising his voice, told Cruz to “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” (keep appearing but first pass the bar).
Respondent’s statements were allegedly delivered in a manner intended to humiliate, vex, and discredit Cruz publicly.

Cruz accused respondent of misconduct and transgression of lawyer’s ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility due to his discourteous and improper language.
Cruz claimed that respondent’s acts were intended to malign and threaten him.

Respondent alleged the complaint was a scheme to dissuade him from representing the Mina family, against whom Cruz filed several cases.
Respondent argued his statements were made to correct the court’s misimpression that Cruz was a lawyer, pointing out that Cruz was only a law student appearing for himself.
Respondent referenced past incidents reflecting Cruz’s unauthorized legal practice and arrogance, including a case denying Cruz the right to appear as counsel due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
He invoked absolute privilege protecting statements made in judicial proceedings.

The IBP investigative commissioner recommended a three-month suspension of respondent for violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibiting abusive or offensive language by lawyers):

The commissioner found that the utterances were abusive and insulting, especially towards law students not yet licensed.
Respondent’s prior seven-year suspension from practice for contempt and use of contumacious language was noted.
The commissioner rejected respondent’s claim of privilege as the statements were irrelevant to the pending case issues.

The IBP Board of Governors annulled the commissioner’s recommendation and dismissed the case for lack of merit but failed to provide written findings as required by procedural rules.

The Court noted the procedural lapses by the IBP Board of Governors but opted to resolve the case based on the record for speedy justice.
The Court analyzed the utterance “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” within the context of the heated exchange during the judicial proceeding.

Whether respondent’s statement “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” amounted to misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 8.01 on abusive or offensive language.
Whether the IBP Board of Governors’ dismissal of the complaint complies with procedural requirements and merits judicial review.
Whether complainant’s personal appearance in court and self-representation as a law student constitutes unauthorized practice of law.