A.C. No. 9298 - Macapagal vs. Young

In 2006, a writ of possession was issued by the previous presiding judge in an expropriation case (Civil Case No. CV-04-0245) filed by the City of Parañaque against Magdiwang Realty Corporation and Fil-Homes Realty Development Corporation.
In 2008, the case was assigned to Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 195, Parañaque City.
On February 3, 2011, Judge Macapagal granted the plaintiffs’ motion for demolition and issued the corresponding writ, which was served on occupants on October 28, 2011 by the sheriff.

On November 10, 2011, Judge Macapagal sent a letter-complaint to the Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, alleging that respondent Atty. Walter T. Young sent her a threatening letter.
The letter threatened that administrative and criminal complaints for "knowingly rendering an unjust judgment" would be filed if the writ of possession/demolition was implemented.
Judge Macapagal asserted that Atty. Young’s conduct was an act unbecoming of a lawyer and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Atty. Young identified himself as counsel for residents facing eviction via the writ of possession/demolition.
He informed Judge Macapagal of a petition for annulment of judgment with prayer for injunctive relief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA-GR-SP No. 121938).
He referenced a similar “Torres land grab scam” case where administrative complaints had been filed against judicial officers.
He warned that if Judge Macapagal persisted in implementing the writ against non-parties, an administrative and criminal complaint would be filed against her.
The letter asked the judge to cease action that violated due process rights of his clients.

Upon court order, Atty. Young submitted a letter-comment and a formal Comment, denying any malicious intent.
He stated the letter was a courteous warning aimed to protect his clients, informal settlers not made parties to the case, from eviction without due process.
He emphasized no intention to malign or threaten but to notify Judge Macapagal cautiously.
He alleged procedural difficulties in obtaining court documents and asserted that the judge might have been influenced by the city mayor.
He cited legal and moral grounds, including a Biblical passage, to justify the warning.
He asserted his duty as a lawyer to zealously represent clients within the bounds of law, referencing Canon 18 and 19 of the CPR.

The case was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation.
A mandatory conference was held, and parties submitted position papers.
The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Young’s conduct amounted to simple misconduct and recommended issuance of a warning.
The IBP Board of Governors reversed this and found Atty. Young guilty of disrespectful and uncalled for conduct warranting a six-month suspension.
The Board ruled that Atty. Young’s language was menacing, imputed ill and corrupt motives to the judge, and included an improper threat.
The Board cited previous cases sanctioning lawyers for disrespectful conduct toward judges.

Atty. Young filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the complaint was unverified, the letter was courteous and cautionary, and the penalty was excessive.
He offered to accept a warning and denied any imputation of ill motives against Judge Macapagal.
The motion was opposed by Judge Macapagal, who disputed his claims about the apology and accused him of violating Canon 10 for untruthful statements.
The IBP Board denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of new arguments.
The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Whether Atty. Walter T. Young committed an act unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by sending a letter containing threats and disrespectful language to Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal.
Whether the letter sent by Atty. Young constitutes a violation of Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR.
The appropriate penalty to be imposed on Atty. Young considering the circumstances of the case.