A.C. No. 5763 - Ingles vs. Dela Serna

On 25 July 2001, Atty. Gabriel T. Ingles filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Victor dela Serna.
The complaint charged respondent with violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The controversy arose from a memorandum submitted by Atty. dela Serna in Civil Case No. 5781 (A.Cattleya Land, Inc. vs. Carmelita Fudot Singpit and Atty. Narciso dela Serna), before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, of Bohol.
In the memorandum, respondent made pointed accusations including:

Stating that when it was discovered that Tecson had already sold Lot 2-A to Fudot (as evidenced by TCT-17402, 1986), Cattleya could only blame its own lawyers, namely Atty. Federico Cabilao and Atty. Gabriel Ingles, for being manipulated to secure a commission by allegedly overpricing the property.
Alleging, in a section underscored “Bad Faith on the Part of Cattleya and Its Lawyers,” that Cattleya, through its agents and legal counsel, was colluding with Tecson and Pizarras.

Complainant (Atty. Ingles) denied these allegations, asserting the statements were false, malicious, and uncalled for in a memorandum that should have been confined to a summation of facts and legal issues.
Additionally, the complainant refuted any claim that he had overpriced the property to obtain a commission.

The IBP received the complaint and, via a transmittal letter dated 05 August 2001 from Atty. Victor C. Fernandez (Director for Bar Discipline), the case records and a Notice of the Resolution of the Board of Governors were submitted to the Court.
The Board’s Resolution (Resolution No. XV-2002-232) adopted the recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, concluding that:

The respondent had conducted himself with “utter discourtesy” by inserting unsubstantiated, offensive, and abusive statements in his memorandum.
Such conduct constituted a violation of Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, warranting his suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Atty. dela Serna, upon learning of the resolution, promptly filed an Appeal before the Court, contending that:

He was denied substantive and procedural due process due to the absence of any formal investigation by the IBP prior to the issuance of the suspension.
The proper forum for addressing such contempt charges should have been the Regional Trial Court.

The case record cites precedents such as Cottam vs. Atty. Laysa (326 SCRA 614) and Baldomar vs. Atty. Paras (348 SCRA 212), wherein the Court detailed the proper procedure for disciplinary actions against lawyers.
Specific reference is made to pertinent provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, highlighting:

The role and duties of the National Grievance Investigators to conduct formal investigations.
The requirement to serve the complaint on the respondent and allow him a fifteen (15) day period to answer.
Provisions for dismissing complaints that are either clearly without merit or in cases where the answer satisfies the Investigator, as well as guidelines for conducting hearings and issuing resolutions.

These procedures are intended to protect the rights of lawyers and ensure that only a properly and formally investigated complaint may result in disciplinary sanctions.

Whether the IBP violated Atty. dela Serna’s right to procedural due process by imposing a six-month suspension without conducting a formal investigation.
Whether the absence of a formal hearing and the reliance on a merely advisory resolution by the IBP Board of Governors undermined the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was the correct forum to handle the complaint, or if the matter should have been addressed by the Regional Trial Court, particularly concerning allegations of contempt.

Whether the procedures prescribed under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, including service and timely response by the respondent, were properly observed in this case.
Whether the evidence on record sufficiently supported the disciplinary action imposed against Atty. dela Serna.