A.C. No. 13601 - Castro vs. Soriano

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13601)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Relevant dates in the administrative proceedings include the Legal Notice dated September 2, 2019; IBP‑CBD orders and manifestations in 2020–2021 (including July 17, 2020; March 8, 2021; July 26, 2021); IBP‑CBD Report and Recommendation dated February 8, 2022; IBP Board Notice of Resolution dated March 17, 2022 and Extended Resolution dated July 1, 2022; and the Supreme Court decision adopting the IBP investigator’s findings and dismissing the complaint.

Applicable Law and Governing Standards

Because the decision date falls after 1990, the applicable constitutional framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The professional standards alleged violated are the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 8.01 which prohibits lawyers from using language that is “abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” The doctrine of privileged communication as embodied in Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code and relevant jurisprudence (e.g., Tolentino v. Baylosis; Armovit v. Purisima; Dorado v. Pilar; Deles v. Aragona, Jr.) informs the Court’s analysis on whether allegedly offensive statements are protected when made in performance of a legal duty.

Factual Background

Respondent sent a Legal Notice to the Spouses Sendin asserting that Alegria was the true owner of two lots and that the purported sale involved forged special powers of attorney. Paragraph 6 of that Legal Notice stated that the buyers “grabbed the cheap offer of Joselito and his mistress, Mary Ann B. Castro,” juxtaposing a low selling price with an alleged market value and asserting notice of defects in title and authority. Complainant filed a Complaint‑Affidavit for libel with the provincial prosecutor and also furnished the IBP‑CBD, seeking administrative sanctions for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 7 and 8.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

Respondent admitted using the word “mistress” but defended its use as relevant to the subject matter and necessary to inform the buyers of the extramarital nature of the relationship between Joselito and complainant. Respondent maintained she acted under instructions from her client Alegria and relied on documentary and testimonial evidence presented by Alegria to establish the illegitimacy of complainant’s claim and the alleged invalidity of the sale. Respondent also produced sworn statements indicating complainant’s participation in the sale transaction and the receipt/deposit of proceeds.

IBP Findings and Divergent Recommendations

The IBP‑CBD (Investigating Commissioner) found insufficient evidence of corrupt or malicious intent and recommended dismissal, concluding respondent’s language was employed in pursuit of her client’s lawful interests and fell within privileged communications. The IBP Board of Governors reversed, characterizing the use of “mistress” as deplorable and recommending a fine of P2,000.00 with a stern warning for future misconduct.

Supreme Court’s Central Holding

The Court dismissed the complaint for suspension and disbarment, adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation. The Court held that complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court concluded that respondent’s reference to complainant as a “mistress” in the Legal Notice was a privileged communication made in the performance of her legal duty to her client and was relevant and pertinent to the matter at hand.

Rationale on Privileged Communication and Relevancy

Applying the doctrine of privileged communication and the liberal rule of relevancy articulated in Tolentino v. Baylosis, the Court emphasized that statements made in the course of performing a legal duty are protected so long as they are legitimately related to the controversy and not palpably irrelevant. The Court found the term “mistress” to be pertinent because the Legal Notice’s thrust was to apprise the buyers that complainant and Joselito lacked authority to transact the sale and that Alegria claimed ownership; witness statements and complainant’s own admissions supported respondent’s factual basis. The Court therefore resolved doubts in favor of relevancy and treated the remark as made in the context of a privileged communication.

Concurrence: Elaboration on Privilege and Limits

Justice Caguioa (concurring) agreed with dismissal and elaborated the doctrinal basis: lawyers are allowed latitude of remark in furtherance of client causes and may be pardoned some “infelicities of phrase” so long as remarks are relevant and made in the pursuit of a legal duty. The concurrence stressed the liberal relevancy test, noted

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13601)

Court and Citation

Third Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines; A.C. No. 13601 (Formerly CBD Case No. 20-6315), April 17, 2023.
Decision authored by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao; Inting and Singh, JJ., concur; Caguioa, J., files a concurring opinion; Gaerlan, J., files a dissenting opinion.
Case arises from an administrative complaint for suspension and disbarment lodged before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) and escalated to the Court.

Parties

Complainant: Mary Ann B. Castro (hereinafter "complainant" or "Mary Ann").
Respondent: Atty. Zeldania D.T. Soriano (hereinafter "respondent" or "Atty. Soriano"), counsel for Alegria A. Castro.
Related private persons implicated in factual background: Alegria A. Castro (client of respondent), Joselito S. Castro (estranged husband of Alegria, alleged husband/partner of complainant), and Spouses Ferdinand and Rowena Sendin (purchasers / recipients of the Legal Notice).
Registered owners referenced in the Legal Notice: Constancio Castro and Rosario Castro-Mariano.

Nature of the Complaint and Cause of Action

Complaint filed by Mary Ann B. Castro seeking suspension and disbarment of respondent for alleged violations of:
- The Lawyer’s Oath; and
- Canons 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 8.01, which proscribes the use by lawyers, in their professional dealings, of language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.
Complainant also filed a criminal Complaint‑Affidavit for Libel with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Isabela, based on respondent’s use of the word “mistress” in a Legal Notice.

Factual Background — Transactional Facts

Respondent prepared and sent a Legal Notice dated September 2, 2019 on behalf of her client, Alegria A. Castro, to Spouses Ferdinand and Rowena Sendin concerning two parcels of land.
The Legal Notice advised the Spouses Sendin that the parcels they purchased from Joselito S. Castro actually belonged to Alegria by virtue of a written instrument of sale.
The Legal Notice described complainant as the “mistress” of Joselito and included the following relevant passage (as quoted in the record):
- "6. By the 'selling' price, clearly, you are also NOT an innocent purchaser of [sic] value. You bought the subject property for Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) while its market value at the time of 'sale' is Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000). Our client believes that you grabbed the cheap offer of Joselito and his mistress(,) Mary Ann B. Castro(,) despite the obvious notice of defects in the title, in the sale transaction, and in Joselito's authority."
The Legal Notice also alleged that Joselito sold the properties to the buyers by means of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) allegedly containing forged signatures of the registered owners (Constancio and Rosario), and asserted Alegria’s claim of ownership by written instrument of sale.

Procedural History at the IBP-CBD and Related Filings

Complainant filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor (libel) and furnished the same Complaint‑Affidavit to the IBP-CBD to initiate administrative proceedings.
The IBP-CBD issued directives; respondent filed a Verified Answer in compliance, raising special and affirmative defenses and admitting use of the word “mistress” but asserting relevancy and necessity.
The IBP-CBD, in light of the COVID‑19 public health emergency, directed parties to indicate willingness to participate in mandatory conference or to file position papers by video conference; parties filed respective manifestations and the IBP‑ACBD ordered verified position papers and submission for decision.
Complainant filed a Position Paper asserting: (1) complainant had no participation in the sale; (2) “mistress” was uncalled for and unnecessary; (3) respondent should have exercised restraint; and (4) complainant was not owner of properties.
Respondent filed a Verified Position Paper reiterating prior defenses and asserting the language was relevant and not libelous.
IBP‑CBD (Investigating Commissioner Roland B. Beltran) issued a Report and Recommendation dated February 8, 2022, recommending dismissal, finding respondent lacked corrupt or malicious intent in using “mistress” and that complainant failed to establish bad faith by substantial evidence.
The IBP Board of Governors reversed the IBP‑CBD recommendation by Notice of Resolution dated March 17, 2022 and Extended Resolution dated July 1, 2022, finding respondent’s use of the word “mistress” to be deplorable and recommending a fine of P2,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition.

Respondent’s Defenses and Factual Assertions

Respondent admitted using the word “mistress” but contended:
- The term was pertinent and relevant to the subject matter of the Legal Notice and necessary to describe the extramarital nature of the relationship between Joselito and complainant.
- She acted on instructions of her client, Alegria, who presented evidence to establish the invalidity of the marriage between Joselito and complainant as of 2016, asserting Alegria remained the legal wife of Joselito at that time.
- The purpose of the Legal Notice was to warn the Spouses Sendin that they should negotiate with Alegria, the claimed owner, and not with Joselito and complainant.
- Witnesses to the sale attested that complainant participated in the transaction, received payment, and deposited sale proceeds to her bank account; complainant herself admitted she was not the owner.

Issues Presented

Primary legal issue: Whether respondent’s use of the word “mistress” in the Legal Notice constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 7 and 8 of the CPR (specifically Rule 8.01), warranting suspension or disbarment.
Subsidiary factual question: Whether respondent acted with corrupt or malicious intent, or whether her language was privileged and relevant to her client’s cause and the substance of the Legal Notice.

Legal Standards and Doctrines Cited by the Court

Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 — "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
Doctrine of privileged communication as contained in the Revised Penal Code (references in the record include Article 354 and, in the concurring opinion’s citations, Article 254) — private communications made in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty are protected from being considered defamatory provided they meet the relevancy/pertinence test.
Test for relevancy/pertinency in privileged communications, as articulated in Tolentino v. Baylosis (110 Phil. 1010 (1961)) and related jurisprudence:
- Courts favor a liberal rule; statements need not be strictly material but must be legitimately related or so pertinent that they may become the subject of inquiry during trial.
- Doubts are resolved in favor of relevancy; for the purposes of relevancy, the court may assume alleged slanderous charges to be true.
Allowance for lawyers’ latitude in advocacy:
...continue reading