Case Summary (A.C. No. 8789)
Applicable Law
The case was decided after 1990 and is thus governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the 1987 Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegations involve breaches of the Lawyer’s Oath and multiple Canons and Rules of the CPR, specifically:
- Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03 — Upholding law and avoiding corrupt or dilatory suits
- Canon 8, Rule 8.01 — Courtesy and avoidance of harassing tactics toward fellow lawyers
- Canon 10 — Candor, fairness, and good faith to the court
- Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 12.04 — Avoidance of multiple actions from the same cause and undue delay or misuse of court processes
- Canon 19, Rule 19.01 — Representation with zeal but only with fair and honest means
Complaint Against Atty. Basa
Atty. Cabarroguis accused Atty. Basa of employing dilatory tactics during a protracted trial, including filing for judicial inhibition after eight years, which resulted in multiple judges recusing themselves and caused substantial trial delay. Basa’s tactics were considered harassing, as reflected in multiple administrative, criminal, and civil complaints filed against Cabarroguis after the estafa filing against Basa’s sister. Among these, some complaints were dismissed as baseless, while others proceeded, with Cabarroguis sustaining disciplinary sanctions in some cases.
Furthermore, Atty. Basa was accused of conducting himself with unprofessionalism by deliberately misspelling Cabarroguis’ first name in formal court pleadings and demand letters, which was interpreted as a form of belittlement and disrespect.
Atty. Basa’s Defense
Atty. Basa clarified that some complaints against Cabarroguis were instituted by his clients, not personally by him, and some had been substantiated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG), resulting in disciplinary measures including suspension and admonition against Cabarroguis for falsification and perjury. Basa denied acting with bad faith and maintained that his conduct was an appropriate zeal in defending his client’s interests. He insisted that the disbarment complaint was motivated by vengeance from Cabarroguis.
IBP Investigation and Recommendations
The IBP’s initial Investigating Commissioner found merit in the complaint, holding that Atty. Basa engaged in harassing tactics, abused court processes by filing multiple suits and motions for inhibition, and disrespected a fellow lawyer by caricaturing his name in documents. The IBP-BOG adopted this finding and recommended a one-year suspension.
However, after motions for reconsideration, the IBP-BOG reversed the suspension and dismissed the complaint upon finding no conclusive proof of bad faith. They reasoned that the number of cases does not alone establish bad faith and noted that multiple causes of action for falsification could validly arise from discrete acts.
Supreme Court’s Review and Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the IBP-BOG’s dismissal and reinstated the original suspension recommendation. It held that Atty. Basa had indeed violated his Lawyer’s Oath and several CPR Canons and Rules for the following reasons:
Filing Baseless Actions: Several criminal complaints filed by Basa or instigated by him were dismissed for lack of probable cause, notably complaints for falsification that duplicated causes of action already dismissed previously. This conduct constituted an abuse of court processes and contravened the duty not to encourage or delay suits without just cause (Canon 1, Rule 1.03; Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 12.04; Canon 19, Rule 19.01).
Harassment Through Legal Maneuvers: After the estafa case filed by Cabarroguis’ client, Basa’s multiple complaints and the strategic, late filing of a motion for judicial inhibition caused repeated judge recusals and unreasonable delay of court proceedings, evidencing tactics designed to vex and hinder opposing counsel unlawfully.
Unprofessional Conduct Toward a Fellow Lawyer: The deliberate and repeated misspelling and mocking of Cabarroguis’ name in formal pleadings and a demand letter amounted to disrespect and violation of professional courtesy owed to a colleague (Canon 8, Rule 8.01).
Malicious Litigation: The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty to counsel their clients honestly about the merits and to avoid litigating without sound foundation (Canon 1, Rule 1.03; Canon 12), and that bringing repetitive complaints based on the same facts with no
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8789)
Case Background and Parties Involved
- The case arises from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Honesto Ancheta Cabarroguis against Atty. Danilo A. Basa.
- Atty. Cabarroguis was the retained counsel of Godofredo V. Cirineo, Jr., who filed an estafa case against his sister-in-law, Erlinda Basa-Cirineo.
- Erlinda was represented by her brother, Atty. Basa, the respondent charged with multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- The complaint accuses Atty. Basa of using dilatory and harassing tactics, including the filing of numerous baseless administrative, civil, and criminal cases against Atty. Cabarroguis.
- Key issues include allegations of malicious prosecution, bad faith in filing suits, harassment, and disrespect towards a fellow lawyer.
Allegations Against Atty. Basa
- Deliberate delays in the estafa case by requesting the inhibition of the presiding judge after eight years of trial, leading to multiple judge inhibitions and case delays.
- Immaturity exhibited by misspelling Atty. Cabarroguis’s first name (“HONESTo” in an omnibus motion and “Honest” in a demand letter) in a derogatory manner.
- Filing numerous retaliatory administrative, civil, and criminal complaints against Atty. Cabarroguis, considered malicious and unfounded.
- Use of court records to paint Atty. Cabarroguis as dishonest in a complaint for malicious prosecution.
- Violation of various Canons and Rules of the CPR, including Canon 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.03), Canon 8 (Rule 8.01), Canon 10, Canon 12 (Rules 12.02, 12.04), and Canon 19 (Rule 19.01).
Actions Taken by Atty. Basa and the Nature of Complaints Filed
- Atty. Basa countered claims, clarifying that some complaints against Atty. Cabarroguis were substantiated leading to previous sanctions (suspensions and admonitions).
- Denied personally filing some criminal cases, attributing them to his clients, although he was counsel in these cases.
- Argued absence of bad faith, asserting he exercised his right to defend himself using extensive evidence in related cases.
- Emphasized that complaints were filed before the disbarment suit, framing Atty. Cabarroguis as motivated by vengeance.
- Highlighted that Atty. Cabarroguis was facing various administrative and criminal prosecutions for falsification and perjury.
Proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
- Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of Atty. Basa for one year based on violations of CPR due to harassing tactics, abuse of judicial processes, and disrespectful conduct.
- IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially adopted the Investigating Commissioner's findings and recommendation.
- Atty. Basa filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing forum shopping by Atty. Cabarroguis and lack of bad faith.
- IBP-BOG reversed its initial resolution, resolving that there was no sufficient showing of bad faith and that multiple complaints did not automatically signify harassment.
Issues Brought Before the Supreme Court
- The principal issue is whether the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Atty. Basa.
- The Court had to assess if Atty. Basa acted in bad faith and