A.M. SDC-97-2-P - Alawi vs. Alauya

Case Summary (A.M. SDC-97-2-P)

Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture

Sophia Alawi filed a verified complaint with the Supreme Court (dated January 25, 1996) after learning of Alauya’s December 15, 1995 letter to Villarosa & Co.; she accused Alauya of making malicious and libelous imputations, causing injury to her reputation, unauthorized use of free postage, and usurping the title “attorney.” The Court ordered Alauya to comment; the matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.

Facts: Contracting and Loan Origination

Through Alawi’s agency, Alauya executed a contract to purchase a housing unit from Villarosa & Co. on installment and obtained a housing loan from NHMFC payable via salary deductions (monthly deduction alleged at approximately P4,338.00 / P4,333.10). Alauya later repudiated the contract and loan as fraudulent.

Facts: Alauya’s Notices Repudiating the Contract and Loan

On December 15, 1995 Alauya wrote Villarosa & Co. notifying termination of the contract, alleging his consent was vitiated by “gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence” by Alawi and describing the contract as “void ab initio.” He copied NHMFC and others. The envelope to Villarosa displayed the typewritten legend “Free Postage a PD 26” and bore no postage. Alauya sent further letters to NHMFC (February 21, 1996; April 15, 1996; May 3, 1996) and to Court fiscal/finance officers (January 18, 1996) requesting cancellation of the loan, cessation of salary deductions, and asserting the contract and loan were obtained without his authority.

Facts: NHMFC Response and Financial Consequences

In May 1996 NHMFC wrote the Supreme Court to stop deductions effective May 1996 and began negotiations with Villarosa & Co. for buy-back of the mortgage and refund of Alauya’s payments. Alauya stated that in six months approximately P26,028.60 had been deducted from his salary.

Complaint by Alawi and Allegations Against Alauya

Alawi’s complaint alleged that Alauya: (1) imputed malicious and libelous charges without solid grounds; (2) caused undue injury to her honor and reputation; (3) improperly used the franking privilege (free postage); and (4) usurped the title “attorney.” She characterized Alauya’s accusations as baseless, malicious, and defamatory, and sought disciplinary action including dismissal.

Alauya’s Initial Procedural Responses

Alauya first filed a Preliminary Comment challenging the assistant clerk who issued the notice, questioning authority to require his explanation and implying improper links between Alawi and that assistant. He later requested a copy of the complaint, then submitted a full Comment (June 5, 1996) defending his communications as acts in defense of his rights, asserting his belief that Alawi had falsified his signature and fraudulently bound him to the contract and loan, and claiming emotional and financial injury from salary deductions.

Alauya’s Specific Defenses Concerning Conduct Allegations

Alauya asserted he had been induced to sign a blank contract and that Alawi forged his signature on various documents (down payment, clearance, lay-out, receipt of key, salary deduction authorizations). He explained the use of the title “Atty.” in some letters as a preference but elsewhere described himself as “Datu.” Regarding the franking allegation, he averred he gave money for postage to a subordinate and produced an affidavit of the subordinate (Absamen C. Domocao, Clerk IV) asserting the subordinate mailed the letters; Alauya maintained any appearance of free-franking was inadvertent or the act of others.

Legal Standards Cited by the Court

The Court relied on the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713), including the State policy to promote high ethical standards and Section 4’s command that public officials at all times respect rights of others and refrain from acts contrary to law, good morals, customs, public policy, and public order. The Court also referenced prior decisions emphasizing elevated standards for personnel involved in administration of justice and specific disciplinary provisions in RA 6713 (penalties including fines, suspension, or removal). Civil Code Article 19 (act with justice, give everyone his due, observe honesty and good faith) and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (UP Rules 8.01, 11.03 and Rule 7.03) were applied by analogy to members of the Shari’a Bar.

Court’s Analysis on Intemperate Language and Standards for Judicial Employees

The Court held that even if Alauya sincerely believed he was wronged, his public denunciatory letters used excessively intemperate, insulting, and virulent language inconsistent with the duty of prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity expected of a judicial employee and Shari’a Bar member. Righteous indignation does not justify vituperation; a judicial officer must pursue redress without malice or vindictiveness and in a manner consistent with good morals, good customs, public policy, and public order.

Court’s Analysis on Use of the Title “Attorney”

The Cour

Case Syllabus (A.M. SDC-97-2-P)

Facts of the Case

Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a sales representative (or coordinator) of E. B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., a real estate and housing company of Davao City.
Ashary M. Alauya was the incumbent Executive Clerk of Court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District, Marawi City; he and Alawi were former classmates and used to be friends.
Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of a housing unit from Villarosa & Co., and a housing loan in connection with that purchase was granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
On December 15, 1995, Alauya wrote to the President of Villarosa & Co. stating he was formally terminating the Contract/Agreement with the company on grounds that his consent was vitiated by “gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence” allegedly perpetrated by sales agent Sophia Alawi, rendering the contract void ab initio; he demanded mutual rescission and threatened legal action if annulment was not achieved.
The envelope containing Alauya’s letter to Villarosa & Co. bore no postage stamp and showed the typed words “Free Postage a PD 26” at the upper right corner.
On December 15, 1995, Alauya also wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President, Credit & Collection Group, NHMFC, repudiating as fraudulent and void the contract with Villarosa & Co., requesting cancellation of the housing loan being paid via salary deductions (stated in different submissions as P4,338.00 per month and P4,333.10 per month).
Alauya sent further letters to Mr. Arzaga dated February 21, 1996, April 15, 1996, and May 3, 1996, reiterating his insistence on cancellation of the NHMFC housing loan and discontinuance of salary deductions.
Alauya also wrote on January 18, 1996 to the Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office and to the Chief, Finance Division of the Supreme Court to stop deductions from his salary in relation to the loan, again asserting he had been duped by the sales agent.
In May 1996, the NHMFC wrote to the Supreme Court requesting cessation of deductions on Alauya’s UHLP loan “effective May 1996,” and the NHMFC began negotiating with Villarosa & Co. for a buy-back of the mortgage and refund of Alauya’s payments.

Complainant’s Allegations and Relief Sought (Sophia Alawi)

On January 25, 1996, Sophia Alawi filed a verified complaint with the Supreme Court attaching a copy of Alauya’s December 15, 1995 letter and the envelope showing “Free Postage a PD 26.”
Alawi’s complaint accused Alauya of:
- Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith.
- Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation.
- Unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage (franking privilege).
- Usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may use.
Alawi protested that Alauya called her “unscrupulous, swindler, forger, manipulator” and other epithets “without even a bit of evidence,” and characterized his allegations as irresponsible, concocted, lies, baseless, and in bad faith.
Alawi maintained that all her dealings with Alauya had been regular and completely transparent.
She requested that Alauya be dismissed from the service or be appropriately disciplined.

Respondent’s Initial Reactions and Procedural Responses (Ashary M. Alauya)

The Court ordered Alauya to comment on the complaint; notices of resolution were signed by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant Division Clerk of Court, in conformity with established practice that such notices emanate from the Clerk’s Office.
Alauya first submitted a “Preliminary Comment” dated April 19, 1996, wherein he:
- Questioned the authority of Atty. Marasigan, an Assistant Division Clerk of Court, to require his explanation, asserting that such authority belongs to the District Judge, the Court Administrator, or the Chief Justice.
- Voiced suspicion of a “strong link” between Alawi and Marasigan’s office.
- Ascribed Alawi’s complaint to envy, alleging she was envious of his positions (Executive Clerk of Court, ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, District Registrar) and status.
On April 22, 1996, in a later letter to Atty. Marasigan, Alauya requested a copy of the complaint to enable him to comment; the tone of this letter was less aggressive and more obsequious.
In his substantive Comment dated June 5, 1996, Alauya:
- Asserted his acts as Clerk of Court were done in good faith and within the law.
- Alleged that Sophia Alawi had falsified his signature and fraudulently bound him to a housing loan contract, resulting in monthly salary deductions.
- Claimed he had suffered undue injury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, and financial suffering, noting that in six months a total of P26,028.60 had been deducted from his salary.
- Denied any abuse of the franking privilege, stating he gave P20.00 plus transportation to a subordinate to mail letters; he contended the words “Free Postage a PD 26” were typed on the envelope by another person, an assertion supported by the affidavit of Absamen C. Domocao, Clerk IV, which was attached as Annex J.
- Asserted that, if the letters were mixed with the Court’s official mail, it was inadvertent and an honest mistake.
- Defended his prior use of the title “attorney” as lexically synonymous with “Counsellors-at-law” and said he preferred “attorney” to “counsellor” to avoid confusion with local legislative titles; he stated, however, that in the June 5, 1996 Comment he referred to himself as “DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA” and did not use the title.
- Reiterated that he had been manipulated by Alawi, alleging she induced him to sign a blank contract, promised to allow him to correct the completed document later but avoided him thereafter, and that she forged his signature on documents related to down payment, clearance, lay-out, receipt of the key, and salary deduction.
- Claimed Alawi obtained his GSIS policy from his wife and delayed returning it for several months.
- Maintained that his communications with Villarosa & Co. and NHMFC were in defense of his rights and asked for dismissal of the complaint as fallacious, malicious, and bas