Case Digest (G.R. No. 122274)
Facts:
Complainant Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed on March 1, 2006 a verified complaint against Respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin for alleged intimidation, harassment, blackmail, and threats after a favorable Metropolitan Trial Court decision in FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem (Civil Case No. 2004-307). Respondent sought an extension to file a comment but failed to do so despite multiple notices, prompting fines and unserved arrest orders, and the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) which recommended disciplinary action.Issues:
- Should Respondent be administratively sanctioned for allegedly intimidating and harassing Complainant instead of availing procedural remedies?
- If liable, what penalty is appropriate?
Ruling:
The Court found Respondent administratively liable for violating Canon 8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended Respondent from the pra Case Digest (G.R. No. 122274)
Facts:
- Complaint and parties
- Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a verified complaint/affidavit dated March 1, 2006 before the Court seeking disciplinary action.
- Atty. Rizal P. Balbin was the respondent accused of unprofessional conduct.
- Underlying civil litigation
- The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 2004-307, FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 77.
- Complainant acted as plaintiff's counsel and obtained a favorable judgment dated November 9, 2005.
- Allegations of respondent's conduct
- After the MeTC judgment and while the case was on appeal, respondent, as counsel for the defendant, allegedly began intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously threatening complainant to induce withdrawal of the case.
- Respondent allegedly made telephone calls and sent text messages and e-mails to complainant, his friends, and other clients threatening to file disbarment and/or criminal suits.
- Respondent allegedly threatened to publicize such suits to besmirch or destroy complainant's name and reputation.
- Procedural events in the administrative complaint
- Respondent moved for an extension of time to file his comment by Motion dated June 13, 2006.
- The Court granted the extension by Notice of Resolution dated December 4, 2006.
- Respondent failed to file his comment despite multiple notices.
- The Court repeatedly fined respondent and issued orders for his arrest, as shown in Notices of Resolution dated March 19, 2008; August 10, 2009; April 13, 2011; and January 23, 2013.
- A Warrant of Arrest was issued dated April 13, 2011 and an Alias Order of Arrest and Commitment dated January 23, 2013; these orders remained unserved and standing as of April 17, 2013.
- The Court dispensed with respondent's comment and forwarded the records to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation by Resolution dated April 17, 2013.
- IBP investigation and re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary legal question
- Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.
- Ancillary sentencing question
- If administratively liable, w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)