Case Summary (A.C. No. 7199)
Factual background: consumer complaint and BFAD proceedings
On June 22–27, 2004 a can of CDO Liver spread allegedly purchased in Valenzuela City was discovered to be sour and containing worms by Alberto Cordero and his relatives. Mrs. Cordero filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD), and laboratory examination confirmed the presence of parasites. Under the Joint DTI‑DOH‑DA Administrative Order No. 1 s.1993 BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing (July 27, 2004) during which the Corderos demanded P150,000 in damages. Foodsphere refused the demand, offering instead to reimburse actual medical and incidental expenses upon presentation of receipts; the Corderos declined and threatened media exposure.
Respondent’s commercial demands, settlement proposal and alleged extortionate conduct
Respondent sent a fax (August 6, 2004) containing the proposed front page of his tabloid and threatened publication unless Foodsphere acceded to the P150,000 demand. He subsequently proposed an alternative settlement of P50,000, allocating P15,000 to the Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation, and he solicited paid advertisements in his tabloids and program. On August 11, 2004 respondent transmitted an Advertising Contract and TV Program Profile with specified rate cards; Foodsphere offered three full‑page tabloid ads (P45,000 total) and three 30‑second TV spots (P23,100 total). Respondent expressed disappointment at that offer and threatened publication if it did not meet his commercial terms.
Kasunduan, BFAD dismissal, and respondent’s subsequent media activity
A written Kasunduan dated August 10, 2004, prepared and witnessed by respondent and signed by the Corderos and Foodsphere, sought withdrawal of the BFAD complaint; BFAD found the agreement not contrary to law or public policy and dismissed the complaint. Despite the executed Kasunduan and BFAD dismissal, respondent publicly claimed to have prepared the document and continued publishing articles and broadcasting segments alleging defects and other adverse matters about Foodsphere and its products.
Media campaign specifics and ongoing publications
Respondent launched a sustained media campaign across his tabloids, radio and television platforms. Notable manifestations included a radio “contest” (August 28, 2004) and multiple tabloid articles between August and December 2004 bearing headlines and themes such as “KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!”, “IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!”, and a series of columns in Bagong TIKTIK and Hataw! alleging worms, urging suspension, recounting alleged incidents involving CDO guards, and criticizing the company’s reactions. Respondent continued publishing these pieces after the filing of civil and criminal cases.
Civil and criminal proceedings initiated by Foodsphere; temporary restraining order
Foodsphere filed criminal complaints for libel and threatening to publish libel (Revised Penal Code Arts. 353, 356) with city prosecutors (Quezon City and Valenzuela City) and, on October 26, 2004, filed a civil action for damages (Civil Case No. 249‑V‑04) in the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City. The trial court issued a status quo Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) dated December 10, 2004, enjoining the defendants and their agents from publishing, televising or broadcasting matter imputing vices or defects on Foodsphere and its products; the TRO was served on respondent on December 13, 2004.
Respondent’s conduct in pending prosecutions and offensive pleadings
While criminal complaints were pending, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance with an urgent motion to elevate the Valenzuela cases to the Department of Justice and submitted pleadings that sharply criticized and cast aspersions on the integrity and impartiality of the Valenzuela City Prosecutor’s Office and its staff. In a separate Motion to Dismiss, respondent used insulting language (“if the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is inside their thick skulls”), reflecting intemperate and disrespectful conduct toward judicial officers and opposing counsel.
Defiance of court order and IBP investigative findings
Despite receipt of the TRO, respondent authored articles in December 2004 (December 16 and 17 issues) that addressed the prohibited subject matter. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent deliberately violated the spirit and letter of the Kasunduan he prepared, published material that disparaged Foodsphere after BFAD dismissal, used media statements while litigation was pending in violation of media‑statement prohibitions, and published further pieces after the TRO. The Commissioner concluded respondent engaged in deceitful conduct and used his media influence to pressure Foodsphere for commercial advantage.
Ethical provisions the Court found violated
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s assessment and identified multiple breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility and related canons: (a) Rule 1.01 (Canon 1) — refraining from unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct — because respondent manipulated the consumer complaint to solicit funds/advertising and then disparaged the company despite the Kasunduan he prepared; (b) Rule 13.02/13.03 (Canon concerning public statements) — prohibition on making public statements in the media regarding pending cases tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party — as respondent continued media attacks despite pending civil and criminal proceedings and despite the TRO; (c) Canon 1 and the lawyer’s oath — failure to uphold the Constitution, obey laws and respect legal process,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7199)
Case Caption, Citation and Decision Writer
- Reported at 611 Phil. 1; En Banc; A.C. No. 7199 (Formerly CBD 04-1386); decided July 22, 2009.
- Title in source: "FOODSPHERE, INC., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., RESPONDENT."
- Decision penned by Justice Carpio Morales.
Parties and Roles
- Complainant: Foodsphere, Inc., a corporation engaged in meat processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under the brand name "CDO."
- Respondent: Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., also known as "Batas Mauricio," described as a writer/columnist for tabloids (Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO, HATAW!), host of television program "KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS" (telecast over UNTV), and host of radio program "Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN" (aired over DZBB).
- Complaint brought to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Nature of Complaint and Administrative Charges
- Verified Complaint for disbarment filed before the CBD by Foodsphere, Inc.
- Administrative charges alleged against respondent:
- Grossly immoral conduct.
- Violation of lawyer’s oath.
- Disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.
- Underlying factual dispute involved alleged infestation of a can of CDO Liver spread purchased by Alberto Cordero and subsequent media and administrative actions.
Underlying Factual Background (concise)
- June 22, 2004: Alberto Cordero purportedly purchased canned goods, including CDO Liver spread, from a grocery in Valenzuela City.
- June 27, 2004: As the Corderos ate bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found it sour and discovered a colony of worms inside the can; Cordero’s wife filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD).
- Laboratory examination confirmed presence of parasites in the Liver spread.
- BFAD conciliation hearing (pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993) held on July 27, 2004; spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages.
- Foodsphere refused the P150,000 demand as contrary to company policy and “outrageous”; offered instead to reimburse actual medical and incidental expenses supported by receipts — offer rejected by the Corderos, who threatened media exposure.
- BFAD required Foodsphere to file an Answer; BFAD later dismissed the complaint after the parties executed a Kasunduan dated August 10, 2004.
Respondent’s Initial Contacts and Demands
- August 6, 2004: Respondent faxed to Foodsphere the front page of the would-be Aug. 10–16, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas BATAS which contained articles Foodsphere deemed maligning and discrediting.
- Respondent threatened publication unless Foodsphere acceded to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos.
- Respondent later proposed a settlement of P50,000: P15,000 to the Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation; he directed Foodsphere to place paid advertisements in his tabloids and television program.
- Foodsphere offered three full-page tabloid ads (P45,000 total at P15,000 each) and three 30-second TV spots (P23,100 total at P7,700 each) as a goodwill settlement; respondent and his Executive Producer were reportedly disappointed and threatened publication.
Advertising Solicitations and Materials Sent by Respondent
- August 11, 2004: Respondent sent an Advertising Contract asking Foodsphere to advertise in Balitang Patas BATAS for 24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue (total P360,000).
- Respondent also sent a Program Profile for "KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS" with rate cards:
- 15-second TVC at P4,000;
- 30-second TVC at P7,700;
- Season buy (13 episodes, 26 spots) of 30-second TVC for P130,000.
- These offers were the basis for Foodsphere’s goodwill counter-offer and respondent’s subsequent threats when Foodsphere did not accede to full advertising demands.
Kasunduan, BFAD Dismissal and Respondent’s Conduct Regarding the Agreement
- The Corderos and Foodsphere executed a Kasunduan (Annex C and C-1) dated August 10, 2004 seeking withdrawal of the BFAD complaint; BFAD’s Order dated August 16, 2004 dismissed the complaint, noting the agreement was not contrary to law, morals, public order or policy.
- Respondent affixed his signature to the Kasunduan as a witness and later wrote in a column that he prepared the document.
- Despite the Kasunduan and BFAD dismissal, respondent launched media publications and broadcasts disparaging Foodsphere and its products.
Specific Media Publications, Broadcasts and Statements by Respondent
- August 28, 2004: On his radio program "Double B-Batas ng Bayan" at DZBB, respondent announced a contest with the question "aling liver spread ang may uod?" and invited listeners to call specified telephone numbers; the announcement was transcribed in the complaint and quoted at length.
- Tabloid columns and articles published by respondent (with dates and titles as set out in the source):
- Balitang Patas BATAS:
- Aug. 31–Sept. 6, 2004: Article titled "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD !"
- Sept. 7–13, 2004: Article titled "IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!"
- Sept. 14–20, 2004: Article titled "DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO."
- Bagong TIKTIK, column "LAGING HANDA" (series of articles with dates and issue numbers, as listed):
- (a) "Uod sa liver spread," Sept. 6, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276)
- (b) "Uod, itinanggi ng CDO," Sept. 7, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277)
- (c) "Pagpapatigil sa CDO," Sept. 8, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.278)
- (d) "Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado," Sept. 9, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.279)
- (e) "Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod," Sept. 10, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.280)
- (f) "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," Sept. 11, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.281)
- (g) "Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO guards," Sept. 14, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.284)
- (h) "Brutalidad ng CDO guards," Sept. 15, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.285)
- (i) "CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP," Sept. 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287)
- (j) "May uod na CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili," Sept. 18, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.288)
- (k) "Desperado na ang CDO," Sept. 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290)
- (l) "Atty. Rufus Rodriguez pumadrino sa CDO," Sept. 21, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.291)
- (m) "Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero," Sept. 22, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.292)
- (n) "Bakit nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO," Sept. 23, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.293)
- Hataw!, column "Anggulo ng Batas":
- Sept. 8, 2004: Article titled "Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread."
- Balitang Patas BATAS:
- Respondent also repeatedly raised the same allegations in several September 2004 episodes of his television program "Kakampi Mo ang Batas" aired over UNTV.
- Additional publications after institution of civil suit: respondent wrote and publicized "Buwelta sa CDO" (October 2004) and "Child Abuse Kontra CDO" (November 2–8, 2004).
Criminal and Civil Proceedings Initiated by Complainant
- Foodsphere filed criminal complaints for libel and threatening to publish libel (Articles 353 and 356, Revised Penal Code) against respondent and several others before the Offices of the City Prosecutors