Case Digest (A.C. No. 1594)
Facts:
Estrella Ochida v. Honesto Cabarroguis, Adm. Case No. 1594, May 07, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Estrella Ochida (then defendant in Civil Case No. 529, Court of First Instance of Davao, Tagum, Branch IX) filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent lawyer Honesto Cabarroguis alleging that he vilified her by calling her a "fugitive from justice" while arguing a motion on September 24, 1975 in the civil case brought by the heirs of Felipe Cordova.
The trial court proceedings are quoted in the complaint: during argument, Atty. Cabarroguis described Mrs. Ochida as “a fugitive from justice” and referenced five warrants of arrest pending against her; opposing counsel objected and the court ordered the remark stricken from the record. Feeling aggrieved, Mrs. Ochida treated the statement as calumny and filed the disbarment complaint on October 8, 1975, which the lower court forwarded to the Supreme Court.
In his comment, Atty. Cabarroguis invoked the rule of absolute privilege for relevant utterances in judicial proceedings, defended the pertinence of his statement as illustrating dilatory tactics, and asserted that Mrs. Ochida was in fact charged with estafa in five cases. He also asserted that a special counsel of the Provincial Fiscal’s Office of Davao del Norte dismissed her complaint against him for grave oral defamation (resolution dated November 26, 1975), and that a civil suit for damages (P132,000) arising from the same utterance had been dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Davao (order dated December 3, 1975, Civil Case No. 710).
Mrs. Ochida replied that the imputation was irrelevant and inaccurate because she had posted bail and that she had appealed the dismissal of her civil act...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the respondent’s remark made in the course of court proceedings protected by the privilege accorded to judicial utterances and therefore immune from disciplinary sanction?
- Did the respondent commit gross misconduct that justifies disciplinary action for his characterization of the complainant as a “...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)