Title
Canete vs. Puti
Case
A.C. No. 10949
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
Atty. Puti reprimanded for unprofessional conduct, including offensive remarks and disrespect toward opposing counsel and judge, violating ethical standards.
reprimanded
discourteous remarks
inappropriate remarks
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10949)

Procedural History

Canete filed an administrative complaint with the CBD-IBP alleging repeated misconduct by Atty. Puti during criminal proceedings. A mandatory conference was held, parties submitted position papers, and the Investigating Commissioner prepared a Report and Recommendation finding respondent liable and recommending a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification, suspending Atty. Puti for six months and citing violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 8, Rule 10.01, 10.03, Canon 10 and Canon 11. No motion for reconsideration by Atty. Puti was filed with the IBP, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court for review.

Allegations Made by the Complainant

Canete alleged three primary forms of misconduct by Atty. Puti: (1) appearing intoxicated in court on multiple occasions; (2) provoking and insulting opposing counsel and the public prosecutors—examples include calling Atty. Tan “bakla,” accusing prosecutors of being paid, and making sarcastic remarks; and (3) disrespecting and threatening the trial judge in open court by accusing the judge of abusing discretion, imputing bias, and threatening to withdraw and walk out.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

Atty. Puti denied the allegation that he appeared intoxicated and asserted that he was provoked by Atty. Tan, who allegedly made threats. He maintained that his remarks were part of zealous advocacy on behalf of his client and that calling attention to alleged judicial bias was within his duties as counsel. He requested dismissal of the complaint.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of misconduct for failing to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward colleagues and for imputing bias on the judge without basis; the Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation but modified the penalty to six months’ suspension and identified violations including the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 8 (and certain rules cited), Canon 10, and Canon 11.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Intoxication Allegation

The Court examined the record and found insufficient proof that Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated at hearings. Although the complainant alleged multiple witnesses to such conduct, the Court concluded the evidence did not establish that respondent was intoxicated during court proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed that particular ground of misconduct for lack of proof.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Insults and Improper Remarks Toward Opposing Counsel and Prosecutors

The Court reviewed the stenographic notes and concluded that Atty. Puti employed impertinent and discourteous language toward opposing counsel. The Court analyzed specific instances: the use of the term “bakla” directed at Atty. Tan and the remark “Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo” addressed to the prosecutors. The Court observed that while “bakla” is not inherently derogatory as a descriptive term, its pejorative or deprecating use is offensive and unacceptable in court. The Court found the accusation that prosecutors were paid to be unprofessional. On these findings, the Court held that respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require courtesy, fairness and candor toward professional colleagues and prohibit abusive or offensive language in professional dealings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Disrespect and Imputations Against the Court

Concerning the May 22, 2013 hearing, the Court found that Atty. Puti’s statements imputing abuse of discretion and partiality to the judge, and his threats to withdraw and walk out, were improper. The Court emphasized that while lawyers may criticize judicial acts, such criticisms must be made respectfully and through proper channels rather than by scandalous, menacing or unfounded imputations in open court. The Court determined respondent violated Canon 11 and its attendant rules—Rule 11.03 (abstention from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts) and Rule 11.04

...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