A.C. No. 7252 - Ng vs. Alar

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7252)

Factual Background

Complainant Ng was one of the respondents in a labor case docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 040273-04, while respondent Alar acted as counsel for the complainants in that labor matter. After the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and the NLRC First Division affirmed, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI) containing vehement criticisms and invective directed at the NLRC commissioners and the Labor Arbiter, accusing them of partiality, ignorance of the law, and impropriety, and employing insulting and demeaning language throughout the pleading.

Procedural History Before the IBP

Ng filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Alar before the IBP, Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondent filed an Answer with Counter-Complaint alleging harassment and asserting that the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility apply only suppletorily at the NLRC; he also contended that labor practitioners deserve latitude when aggrieved. The counter-complaint accused Attys. Paras and Cruz of professional misconduct in their representation of Ng’s employer and related acts; an affidavit of union president Batan accompanied the counter-complaint.

Investigation and Report of the Investigating Commissioner

The case was assigned to Commissioner Patrick M. Velez for investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent Alar used improper and abusive language in his MRMI and recommended suspension for not less than three months with a stern warning that a harsher penalty would follow should the misconduct recur. The Investigating Commissioner found no actionable misconduct against Attys. Paras and Cruz and recommended dismissal of the counter-complaint for lack of merit.

Action by the IBP Board of Governors

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification and issued Resolution No. XVII-2006-223 dated April 27, 2006. The Board found the recommendation supported by the record but, considering respondent’s propensity to resort to undeserved language and disrespectful stance, imposed a reprimand with a stern warning that more severe penalties would follow for similar future misconduct. The Board dismissed the counter-complaint against Attys. Paras and Cruz for lack of merit.

Respondent’s Contentions on Appeal and Counter-Arguments

Respondent argued before the IBP and in his pleadings that the complaint sought merely to harass and to influence pending litigation outcomes; that NLRC proceedings are not courts and thus the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct do not govern lawyers’ conduct before the NLRC; and that labor counsel are entitled to some latitude when aggrieved by perceived corruption or collusion. Attys. Paras and Cruz denied the allegations in the counter-complaint, maintained that their actions before the City Engineer’s Office concerned a distinct cause of action, and asserted that they did not instigate the disbarment complaint.

Supreme Court’s Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reviewed the MRMI and the authorities cited by the IBP. It noted that the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates courteous and fair conduct toward professional colleagues (Canon 8) and respect for courts and judicial officers (Canon 11), including the prohibitions of Rule 8.01, Rule 11.03, and Rule 11.04. The Court observed that the MRMI contained insults and diatribes attacking the moral and intellectual integrity of the NLRC and its members, amounting to improper and offensive language without justification. The Court relied on precedent condemning scandalous and disrespectful pleadings and reiterating that forceful argument must remain dignified and respectful, citing Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, May 10, 2006; Uy v. Depasucat, 455 Phil. 9 (2003); Lubiano v. Gordolla, 201 Phil. 47 (1982); and Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967, 20 SCRA 441, to show that a lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court persists even when addressing quasi-judicial bodies and that patriotic or righteous anger does not excuse abusive language. The Court concluded that respondent violated Canons 8 and 11 and that the misconduct undermined public esteem for

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7252)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Johnny Ng filed a verified complaint dated February 15, 2005 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline, docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1434.
Atty. Benjamin C. Alar was the respondent in the IBP disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct in pleadings filed before the National Labor Relations Commission.
The case was assigned to Commissioner Patrick M. Velez for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension of the respondent for not less than three months for abusive language and disrespectful conduct.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification and imposed a reprimand with a stern warning by Resolution No. XVII-2006-223 dated April 27, 2006.
The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP action and rendered the present resolution increasing the penalty while dismissing the counter-complaint against other counsel.

Key Factual Allegations

The underlying controversy arose from a labor case docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 040273-04, in which the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and the NLRC First Division affirmed that dismissal.
Atty. Benjamin C. Alar filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI) that contained emphatic and derogatory language directed at the NLRC First Division and specific commissioners.
The MRMI accused Commissioner Dinopol and other NLRC officials of partiality, ignorance, inventing grounds for rulings, impaired vision, and application of a so-called "Special Dinopol Rule".
A counter-complaint by respondent Alar alleged malicious instigation of the IBP complaint by opposing counsel and alleged other misconduct by counsel for the employer.
An affidavit by union president Marilyn Batan alleged that Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin Michael Cruz committed multiple ethical breaches by filing administrative actions with the Office of the City Engineer and by conduct affecting the number of complainants.

Issues Presented

Whether the language and allegations in the MRMI violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 8 and Canon 11.
Whether the IBP Board of Governors’ penalty of reprimand with stern warning was appropriate.
Whether the counter-complaint against Attys. Paras and Cruz had merit to warrant disciplinary action.

Parties' Contentions

Atty. Benjamin C. Alar contended that the NLRC is not a court and therefore the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct do not apply to proceedings before it.
The respondent further contended that labor practitioners deserve latitude for righteous anger when they perceive corruption or collusion affecting their clients.
Attys. Paras and Cruz denied improper conduct, maintained that their actions before the Office of the City Engineer were unrelated to NLRC matters, and asserted that any instigation of the IBP complaint was not theirs.
The union-affiant alleged that Paras and Cruz committed ethical violations in splitting causes of action and in conduct that reduced the number of claimants.

Statutory Framework

The disciplinary analysis relied on the Code of Professional Responsibility and its Canons as the governing ethical standards applicable to members of the Bar.
Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 require a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor and to avoid abusive language.
Canon 11 a