A.C. No. 6396 - Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6396)

Filing of Complaint and Evidentiary Support

Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on 8 May 2003, supported by an affidavit from RTC-Bambang employees who witnessed the incident. Complainant later moved to file additional affidavit/documentary evidence. The supporting affidavit names five employees who signed; two additional names were included but did not sign for stated reasons.

Respondent’s Answer, Explanations and Procedural Posture

The CBD ordered respondent to answer; he submitted a Compliance dated 18 June 2003. Respondent explained he was counsel for plaintiffs in a related but distinct Civil Case No. 847 and had an interest in the finality and transmittal of records. He admitted inquiring on 5 May 2003 but offered no full explanation for his conduct that day. A CBD hearing was scheduled for 25 September 2003; respondent did not appear, later explaining physical injuries and claiming he was not mentally fit to prepare pleadings after an unrelated violent incident. In filings he publicly apologized to complainant; complainant manifested acceptance of the apology and requested no further appearance.

Investigating Commissioner’s Recommendation and IBP Action

The Investigating Commissioner, Milagros V. San Juan, recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that further complaints would be dealt with more severely. The IBP adopted and forwarded that recommendation to the Court for resolution.

Legal Analysis: Unauthorized Intervention and Professional Rules Violated

The Court emphasized that respondent was not counsel of record in Civil Case No. 784 and had no authority or authorization from the parties to intervene; therefore his conduct in repeatedly checking on the transmittal amounted to an impermissible encroachment upon the professional employment of another lawyer under Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Independently, respondent’s loud, vulgar, and abusive language directed at an officer of the court in the presence of staff and the public constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The acts violated Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice and scandalous behavior), Canon 8 (requiring courtesy, fairness and candor toward professional colleagues), and Rule 8.01 (prohibiting abusive or offensive language). The Court cited settled authority emphasizing that such public behavior diminishes public respect for the legal profession.

Credibility, Unproven Allegations of Prior Incidents, and Mitigating Considerations

Respondent did not categorically deny the charged conduct; he instead recounted background facts without explaining the specific a

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6396)

Citation and Panel

Reported at 510 Phil. 478, Second Division, Administrative Case No. 6396, decision dated October 25, 2005.
Opinion penned by Justice Tinga.
Decision concurred in by Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.
Justice Chico-Nazario was on leave.

Parties

Complainant: Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya.
Respondent: Atty. Virgil R. Castro, private practitioner and Vice‑President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) — Nueva Vizcaya Chapter; also counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 847 (Sps. Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et al.).

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Administrative case for Unprofessional Conduct filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.
Complaint alleges violations of Canon 7, Rule 7.03; Canon 8; Rule 8.02; and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant sought disciplinary action against respondent for his conduct toward a court officer.

Factual Background — Chronology and Conduct

On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784 (Sps. Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin) had been remanded to the court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva Vizcaya.
It is expressly noted that respondent was not counsel of record for either party in Civil Case No. 784.
Complainant informed him that the record had not been transmitted because a certified true copy of the Court of Appeals decision should first be presented as basis for transmittal.
Respondent responded scornfully, asking rhetorically whether the Court of Appeals itself must certify its decision and whether he would have to go to Manila to obtain a certified true copy.
Complainant invited respondent to show a copy sent to the party he claimed to represent. Respondent retorted that complainant should have notified him of the requirement and complained that he had been frequenting the office for two weeks without being informed.
Complainant stated it was not their duty to notify him that he had to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals decision.
Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano: “Kayat mo nga saw‑en, awan pakialam yon ? Kasdiay ?” (translated in the source as “You mean to say you don't care anymore? Is that the way it is?”).
Respondent then left the office, banging the door loudly; the banging was audible in the adjacent RTC, Branch 30, where a hearing was taking place.
After a few minutes respondent returned, still enraged, pointed his finger at complainant and shouted in Ilocano: “Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah !” (translated in the source as “Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, don't turn your ire on me!”).
Complainant replied she did not even know his client. Respondent left but as he passed by complainant’s window he again shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai !” (translated in the source as “Vulva of your mother, you woman!”).
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment in her office in front of staff, felt her credibility and ability to command respect were tarnished and diminished.

Complaint Filing and Supporting Evidence

Complaint‑Affidavit filed with CBD‑IBP on 8 May 2003 (three days after the incident) with supporting documents.
Complaint‑Affidavit supported by an Affidavit signed by RTC‑Bambang employees who witnessed the incident.
The supporting Affidavit bears signatures of Carmelita E. Caoile, Thelma R. Moya, Nestor L. Rojo, William F. Jandoc, and Jovencio Guyod.
The names of Ruben Panganiban and Eliezer Ordonez are affixed on the Affidavit but do not bear their signatures; an attached Explanation clarifies Ruben Panganiban did not sign because he did not witness the whole incident, and Eliezer Ordonez did not sign because he was out of the province at the time of filing though he was able to observe the whole incident.
A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary Evidence was filed by complainant on 25 September 2003.

CBD / IBP Proceedings and Pleadings

On 26 May 2003, the CBD‑IBP issued an Order requiring respondent to submit his answer.
Respondent submitted a Compliance dated 18 June 2003.
The Investigating Commissioner, Milagros V. San Juan, set a hearing for 25 September 2003; on that date only complainant appeared and moved that the case be submitted for resolution.
Respondent subsequently filed a Manifestation explaining his non‑appearance: he was recuperating from physical injuries and not mentally fit to prepare pleadings; he stated his vehicle was rained with bullets on 19 August