Case Summary (A.C. No. 10949)
Complaint Allegations Against Atty. Puti
Canete accused Atty. Puti of appearing intoxicated during multiple court hearings and of uttering discourteous and inappropriate remarks towards prosecutors and the presiding judge. Specific allegations include:
- Calling the private counsel, Atty. Arturo Tan, "bakla" (gay) in a derogatory manner during a hearing on May 9, 2013.
- Displaying disrespectful and offensive language toward Atty. Tan in hearings held in February and March 2013.
- Making an unprofessional insinuation against public prosecutors that they were receiving heavy payments.
- Using sarcastic language towards a public prosecutor by referring to him as "the handsome public prosecutor."
- Repeatedly bullying and threatening the judge during the May 22, 2013 hearing, including accusing the judge of bias, abuse of discretion, and threatening to withdraw from the case.
Defense by Atty. Puti
Atty. Puti denied all allegations relating to intoxication in court. He claimed that any provocations came from Atty. Tan and asserted that it was his professional duty to challenge the judge's perceived bias. He maintained that his conduct was in zealously representing his client’s interests.
Investigations and Findings by the IBP
The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found Atty. Puti liable for misconduct based on violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The following were specifically noted:
- Failure to maintain courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues.
- Unwarranted and improper imputation of bias against the judge.
- Allegedly appearing intoxicated at hearings was held disrespectful to the courts.
The IBP Board of Governors approved the findings but modified the recommended penalty, suspending Atty. Puti from the practice of law for six months rather than two years.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Intoxication Allegations
The Court examined the claim that Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated during hearings as alleged by Canete but found that the evidence was insufficient. Despite Canete’s assertion that several court personnel and counsels witnessed such conduct, no compelling proof was presented. Consequently, the Court acquitted Atty. Puti on the ground of intoxication.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Use of Discourteous Language
The Court confirmed that Atty. Puti used impertinent and discourteous language in court, citing the transcript records. The term "bakla," while neutral on its own, was used in a pejorative and demeaning manner by Atty. Puti towards Atty. Tan, which is improper and unacceptable in any professional setting, especially in court.
Furthermore, Atty. Puti’s insinuation that the prosecutors were being paid was deemed unprofessional and violated the duty of courtesy and fairness owed to opposing counsel, in violation of Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Disrespect and Threats Toward the Court
The Court scrutinized Atty. Puti’s conduct during the May 22, 2013 hearing, where he accused the judge of abuse of discretion and bias, and threatened to withdraw from the case. It emphasized that while lawyers have the right to respectfully criticize judicial acts, such criticisms must be made through proper channels rather than through disrespectful and menacing language. This conduct violated Canon 11 and related rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require respect and decorum toward courts and judicial officers.
Consideration of Atty. Puti’s Defense of Zealous Representation
The Court rejected Atty. Puti’s defense that his conduct was justified by the duty to zealously represent his client. It clarified that zeal in legal representation does not excuse the use of abusive or unprofessional behavior and language. Upholding
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10949)
Background and Nature of Complaint
- Carmelita Canete filed an administrative complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), against Atty. Artemio Puti.
- Canete’s complaint arose from a criminal case involving her husband as a victim, wherein Atty. Puti represented the accused.
- The complaint alleged multiple instances of professional misconduct by Atty. Puti during court hearings including intoxication, discourteous and inappropriate remarks, and disrespect towards the court and opposing counsels.
- Allegations specifically include accusations of Atty. Puti being intoxicated during hearings, using offensive language such as calling opposing counsel "bakla" (in a pejorative manner), making disparaging statements to and about prosecutors, sarcastic remarks, and challenging the impartiality and decorum of the trial judge.
Specific Instances of Misconduct Alleged
- At the May 9, 2013 hearing, Atty. Puti allegedly called private counsel Atty. Arturo Tan "bakla," a term normally descriptive but here used in a derogatory and condescending manner.
- During the February 14, 2013 hearing, Atty. Puti disregarded objections and exchanged disrespectful words with Atty. Tan, questioning the latter’s professionalism.
- At the March 14, 2013 hearing, Atty. Puti reportedly accused public prosecutors of being paid improperly, prompting official caution from the lead counsel to stop such personal statements.
- At the May 9, 2013 hearing, he sarcastically addressed a public prosecutor as "handsome" with evident sarcasm.
- On May 22, 2013, Atty. Puti was alleged to have bullied and threatened the presiding judge, challenged rulings openly, accused the judge of bias and abuse of discretion, and threatened withdrawal from the case.
Atty. Puti’s Defense and Position
- Atty. Puti denied ever appearing intoxicated in court, asserting no evidence supported this claim.
- He maintained that he was provoked by opposing counsel Atty. Tan, who allegedly threatened him first.
- Atty. Puti justified his remarks and conduct as zealous and proper advocacy intended to represent his client’s interests.
- He asserted that his accusations of judicial bias were part of his duty to call out unfairness in court proceedings.
Findings and Recommendations of the IBP
- The Inve