Case Digest (A.C. No. 10628)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10628)
Facts:
Maximino Noble III v. Atty. Orlando O. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 01, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Maximino Noble III filed a verified complaint for disbarment dated April 16, 2012 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes. Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010 Orlando filed a civil complaint for damages against his brother Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr., whom Maximino represented, and that the pleading carried allegedly inaccurate MCLE/IBP identifiers (an IBP O.R. number and an MCLE compliance entry that, per Maximino, reflected an earlier compliance period). Maximino contended that Orlando should have reflected payment for 2010 and should have completed his third MCLE compliance, not only the second.
In December 2011 Maximino learned that Marcelo had filed a criminal complaint for grave threats and estafa against Orlando; the criminal complaint included text messages Orlando sent Marcelo that disparaged and urged Marcelo to dismiss Maximino as counsel (using phrases such as “polpol” and accusing Maximino of incompetence and exorbitant fees). Records showed Orlando also prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and a Compromise Agreement and sent them to Marcelo for signature. Maximino charged violations of Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as alleged violations under Bar Matter Nos. 850 and 1922, and prayed for disbarment and damages.
Orlando pleaded not guilty in the administrative case, arguing that late submission of MCLE compliance was not a ground for disbarment, that the termination and compromise documents were provided at Marcelo’s request after default in the civil case, and that the text messages were private “brother-to-brother” communications made in good faith. Separately, the criminal charge was downgraded to unjust vexation; on June 19, 2012 Orlando pleaded guilty and was convicted of unjust vexation for “texting insulting, threatening and persuading words to drop his lawyer.”
The IBP Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated April 30, 2013 recommending dismissal of the administrative complaint, finding that MCLE transgressions are not a basis for disbarment and that the communications were private and not intended for publication. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in a Resolution dated May 11, 2013 dismissing the case and initially warning Orlando to be more circumspect; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a May 3, 2014 Resolution which deleted the warning. Aggrieved, Maximino filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the IBP’s dismissal.
Issues:
- Did the IBP correctly dismiss the complaint against Atty. Orlando O. Ailes for alleged violations of Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Is failure to disclose MCLE compliance information in pleadings a ground for disbarment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)