Case Summary (A.C. No. 5737)
Factual Background
Complainant was a fourth year law student who, beginning in late 2001, instituted several civil and criminal actions against neighbors for whom respondent acted as counsel; complainant regularly appeared for himself in those cases. During a hearing on January 14, 2002, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo, respondent sought to correct the court’s impression that complainant was a lawyer and, in the course of the exchange, uttered the words in Tagalog, “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna,” which complainant alleged were uttered in anger and with the intent to humiliate, malign, ridicule and discredit him publicly.
Administrative Complaint
On July 7, 2002, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent for misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, alleging that respondent’s imputations that complainant misrepresented himself as a lawyer and respondent’s tone and manner were abusive, offensive and intended to intimidate and discredit a nonlawyer appearing personally in court.
Respondent’s Contentions
Respondent answered that the complaint was a malicious scheme to dissuade him from representing his clients, that his remarks were made in the course of a judicial proceeding and therefore privileged, and that he spoke only to correct the judge’s mistaken characterization that complainant was counsel because complainant had appeared in barong tagalog and had not informed the court that he was not a lawyer; respondent invoked the privilege of statements made in judicial proceedings as recognized in Navarrete vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 540, and noted parallel and prior litigation including a criminal complaint for oral defamation and an earlier administrative sanction in 1979 (A.M. L-585) involving contumacious language.
IBP Investigation and Recommendation
The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and recommendation, and IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended suspension of respondent’s license for three months for violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, holding that respondent’s utterances were not relevant to the issue before the trial court, were not protected by privilege, had formed the basis of pending criminal charges, and that respondent’s prior disciplinary history corroborated a pattern of intemperate language; the commissioner found the phrase “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” to be abusive and insulting, particularly toward law students, and concluded that respondent should have been more temperate and discreet.
IBP Board of Governors Action and Procedural Defect
On April 16, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors annulled the investigating commissioner’s recommendation and approved dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit; the Board’s resolution, however, did not comply with Sec. 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the Board’s decision be in writing and clearly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based and be promulgated within thirty days, a procedural requirement the Court has emphasized in Teodosio vs. Nava, 357 SCRA 406.
Issues Presented
The principal issues were whether respondent’s outburst amounted to misconduct under Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and whether the IBP Board’s failure to state findings and reasons required remand of the case to the Board for proper disposition.
The Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the IBP Board’s procedural omission under Sec. 12 of Rule 139-B, but invoked the established exception to remand where the controversy had long been pending and the issues could be resolved on the record; on the merits the Court found that respondent’s outburst did not constitute a violation of Rule 8.01 because it occurred when respondent sought to correct the trial court’s mistaken impression that complainant was a lawyer, as shown by the judge’s own order of January 14, 2002, and because the single, isolated outburst, though uncalled for and intemperate,
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5737)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Ferdinand A. Cruz filed an administrative complaint dated July 7, 2002 charging Atty. Stanley Cabrera with misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
- IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended a three-month suspension for violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in a report dated March 4, 2004.
- The IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution on April 16, 2004 annulling and setting aside the investigator's recommendation and dismissing the case for lack of merit.
- The Court reviewed the records and resolved the case on the merits and dismissed the complaint while admonishing the respondent.
Key Factual Allegations
- Complainant alleged that he was a fourth-year law student who since late 2001 instituted several actions against his neighbors and appeared personally in those cases.
- Complainant alleged that respondent acted as counsel for his neighbors and, during a hearing on January 14, 2002 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, respondent stated that the complainant was misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
- Complainant alleged that, after being accused of misrepresenting himself, he replied that he was not a lawyer and that respondent then shouted, "Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna," in a tone intended to annoy, vex, humiliate and discredit him in public.
- The IBP investigator noted that respondent did not refute that Criminal Cases Nos. 02-1031 and No. 02-2136 for Oral Defamation and Unjust Vexation, respectively, were pending before MTC Branch 45, Pasay City, arising from the same utterances.
- The IBP investigator further noted the respondent did not refute that he had been held in contempt and prohibited from practicing law for seven years in A.M. L-585 in 1979 for use of contumacious language.
Procedural History
- The administrative complaint was filed on July 7, 2002 and subsequently investigated by the IBP.
- The IBP investigating commissioner submitted a report dated March 4, 2004 recommending suspension for violation of Rule 8.01.
- The IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution on April 16, 2004 annulling the investigator's recommendation and dismissing the complaint, but failed to state the facts and reasons as required by Sec. 12, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.
- The Court took cognizance of the case, noted the IBP Board's procedural deficiency, and proceeded to resolve the merits on the record.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent's outburst "appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna" constituted a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether respondent's statement was a privileged communication made in the course of judicial proceedings.
- Whether the IBP B