Title
Aseron vs. Dino, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 10782
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2016
A lawyer’s use of abusive language in a reply letter and alleged dilatory tactics in legal proceedings violated ethical standards, resulting in a reprimand by the Supreme Court.
lawyer
reprimand
abusive language

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10782)

Factual Background

On January 25, 2009, Atty. Delio M. Aseron was involved in a vehicular accident along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc., driven by Jerry Garcia. The complainant filed a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Serious Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 025403) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, and a civil case for damages (Ci Case No. Q-09-64558) before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105. Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr. appeared as counsel for Garcia and Nova Auto Transport, Inc. Complainant’s counsel demanded PHP 2,000,000 from the carrier on March 3, 2009. The respondent’s reply letter dated March 20, 2009 contained allegations that the complainant had used his “influence” with a former handling prosecutor to prevent the release of the bus unless payment of the demanded sum was made. The complainant asserted that the reply letter used abusive and disrespectful language, contained malicious and unfounded accusations, and besmirched his reputation, and he filed a libel complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The complainant further charged that the respondent engaged in unwarranted dilatory tactics in the criminal and civil cases and committed malpractice by inconsistent pleadings regarding ownership of the bus.

IBP Proceedings and Resolutions

The Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order on February 11, 2010 directing the respondent to file an Answer within fifteen days, which the respondent did not do. On August 9, 2010 the parties were summoned to a mandatory conference and ordered to submit briefs; the respondent failed to attend and failed to file his brief. The IBP-CBD declared the case submitted for resolution on April 6, 2011. Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero issued a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2011, recommending a penalty of censure for failure to conduct himself toward a fellow lawyer with courtesy. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation on February 12, 2013. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on May 16, 2013, which the Board denied as a mere reiteration on September 27, 2014, but the Board modified the penalty from censure to reprimand. The respondent thereafter sought leave to file a second motion for reconsideration on April 15, 2015.

The Parties’ Contentions

The complainant sought disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr. for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, asserting that the respondent’s March 20, 2009 reply letter contained abusive, offensive and unfounded accusations that harmed his reputation, and that the respondent employed dilatory tactics and committed malpractice in the related court proceedings. The record reflects that the respondent failed to file an Answer, did not attend the mandatory conference before the IBP-CBD, filed motions in the courts that were denied for lack of merit, and pursued motions for reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors following the administrative findings.

Procedural Issue Presented

The narrow procedural question was whether the Court should entertain the respondent’s second motion for reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors. The Court cited its en banc Resolution in Bar Matter No. 1755 construing Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which permits one motion for reconsideration before the Board and prescribes a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as the proper remedy thereafter. The Court nevertheless exercised its discretion, invoking the liberal spirit of the Rules and the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings, to treat the respondent’s second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 45, citing Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos.

Ruling on the Merits

After reviewing the record, the Court agreed with the IBP findings that Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using intemperate language toward a fellow lawyer. The Court relied on Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code, which require lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor and prohibit the use of abusive or offensive language in professional dealings. The Court found that the respondent imputed to the complainant improper use of influence in the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof. The Court observed that, as an officer of the court, the respondent should have presented any charge in a proper forum and refrained from abusive language, noting precedent in Saberon v. Atty. Larong that zeal in advocacy does not justify offensive speech.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court emphasized that Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility bars the use of language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in professional dealings. It accepted Commissioner Cachapero’s assessment that the respondent failed to show the courtesy expected of counsel and allowed ill-feelings to influence his conduct. The Court cited prior pronouncements that lawyers must present their ca

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms