A.C. No. 7330 - PantaNo.s, Jr. vs. Pamatong

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7330)

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

September 8, 2006: TRO hearing in Civil Case No. 2006-176; incident concerning respondent’s wearing of a copia in court.
September 11, 2006: Respondent filed an “Extremely Urgent Motion/Demand for Inhibition or Recusal” (Motion for Inhibition) containing accusatory language. The RTC issued an order denying the motion and directed respondent to show cause. Respondent also filed a complaint with the OCA (docketed A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2541-RTJ).
September 12–15, 2006: Respondent pursued complaints with other offices (CHR, Ombudsman) and participated in a news article on September 15, 2006 reporting the bribery charge.
September 15–18, 2006: Complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment (dated September 15, filed September 18, 2006) with the Supreme Court alleging violations of the CPR.
February 28, 2007: OCA recommended dismissal of respondent’s administrative complaint for lack of proof of bribery.
IBP proceedings: case referred for investigation; Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2010 recommended one-year suspension. IBP Board of Governors adopted with modification on December 15, 2012 and imposed a three-year suspension. Motion for reconsideration denied March 22, 2014.
January 13, 2016: Supreme Court noted transmittal and referral to En Banc.
June 14, 2016: Supreme Court decision reviewed and modified the IBP penalty.

Facts

During the TRO hearing on September 8, 2006, Judge Pantanosas allegedly requested that Atty. Pamatong remove his copia. Pamatong asserted religious exemption and personal embarrassment; the judge warned that the wearing of the copia would not be tolerated at the next hearing. On September 11, 2006, Pamatong filed a Motion for Inhibition that included a passage accusing the judge of corruption—stating in essence that in thirty years of practice he had “never encountered a Judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are” and that the judge was “a disgrace to the Judicial System.” The motion was a public court filing. Pamatong also filed administrative complaints with the OCA and later pursued complaints with the CHR and Ombudsman, and participated in a press article published on September 15, 2006 relating to the alleged bribery. The OCA dismissed Pamatong’s bribery complaint for lack of evidence.

Procedural History Before Disciplinary Bodies

Complainant Pantanosas filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Pamatong alleging violations of Rule 8.01 (use of abusive/offensive language) and Rules 1.01 and 11.04 (dishonest/deceitful conduct and attributing motives to a judge). The Supreme Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. After investigation and position papers, the Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension for violation of the lawyer’s oath and breach of ethics. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification and imposed a three-year suspension. Pamatong’s motion for reconsideration to the IBP was denied. The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court En Banc for final resolution of liability and penalty.

Issues Presented

Whether Atty. Pamatong violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer by (a) employing abusive, scandalous or offensive language in court filings, and (b) making public accusations against a judge without sufficient evidentiary support.
Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors (three-year suspension) was appropriate, or should be modified.

Applicable Law and Standards

1987 Philippine Constitution (as the governing constitutional framework for decisions rendered after 1990).
Lawyer’s Oath, which requires fidelity to and respect for the courts.
Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 8.01 (prohibiting abusive/offensive language in professional dealings), Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful/dishonest/immoral/deceitful conduct), Rule 11.04 (prohibiting attribution to a judge of motives unsupported by the record), Rule 11.05 (requiring grievances against judges to be submitted to proper authorities).
Code of Judicial Conduct provisions cited by respondent in his counter-complaint (Rules 1.01, 2.01, 3.12) were considered in the procedural posture but the disciplinary focus concerned respondent’s obligations under the CPR and Lawyer’s Oath.
Controlling jurisprudence cited in the decision: Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (on lawyer’s duty to uphold dignity of the courts), Judge Lacurom v. Atty. Jacoba, Judge Baculi v. Atty. Battung, Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Habawel v. Court of Tax Appeals, and Areola v. Mendoza (all referenced in assessing conduct and appropriate sanctions).

Analysis and Findings

The Court affirmed the IBP’s factual findings that respondent’s Motion for Inhibition contained blatant and slanderous accusations against Judge Pantanosas and that those accusations were included in a public court record. The Court emphasized the special duty of lawyers, as officers of the court, to maintain respectful conduct toward the judiciary to preserve public confidence. The Court noted that even if a bribery allegation were true, personal attacks directed at a judge and public dissemination through the press were improper and should have been pursued through proper administrative or criminal channels rather than by abusive language in a motion or by publicity. The OCA’s dismissal of respondent’s bribery complaint for lack of evidence further undercut the propriety of respondent’s pu

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7330)

Procedural History

Complaint for Disbarment dated September 15, 2006 was filed by Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. before the Supreme Court against Atty. Elly L. Pamatong, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath (Rollo, pp. 1-6; Dec. date June 14, 2016).
On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution requiring respondent to file his comment within ten (10) days (Rollo, p. 14).
Respondent filed his Comment on the Complaint for Disbarment and Counter-Complaint on December 28, 2006 (Rollo, pp. 15-21).
Respondent alleged prior administrative action: a complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) docketed A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2541-RTJ (filed Sept. 12, 2006), which was dismissed by the Court via Resolution dated February 28, 2007 (Rollo, pp. 27-31; 224).
On February 5, 2007, the Supreme Court referred the Disbarment Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation (Rollo, p. 76).
Case proceedings before the IBP included a mandatory conference (initially set July 23, 2007), termination of the conference, and directions for position papers by Investigating Commissioner Manuel M. Maramba (Rollo, pp. 147; 187).
Position papers were filed by the parties on January 5, 2009 (complainant) and January 16, 2009 (respondent) (Rollo, pp. 188-194; 216-223).
On April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court required the IBP to inform the Court of the case status; IBP compliance was filed June 25, 2010, noting reassignment to Commissioner Albert R. Sordan (Rollo, pp. 228; 230-231).
Commissioner Albert R. Sordan rendered a Report and Recommendation on August 6, 2010 recommending suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year (Rollo, p. 86).
On December 15, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and imposed suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years with a stern warning (Rollo, p. 78).
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Complaint vs. Commissioner Sordan and the IBP Board dated March 14, 2013; this was denied by resolution dated March 22, 2014 (Rollo, pp. 89-99; 237).
The Supreme Court noted transmittal of documents and notices of the IBP resolutions on January 13, 2016 and referred the case En Banc for determination of liability and penalty (Rollo, p. 250).
The Supreme Court, after review, modified the penalty and rendered its Decision on June 14, 2016, suspending Atty. Elly L. Pamatong from the practice of law for two (2) years, effective upon finality of the Decision (Decision, June 14, 2016).

Facts

Complainant Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. was presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20 at the time material to the case (Rollo, p. 1).
Respondent Atty. Elly L. Pamatong represented plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2006-176, entitled Nick Otero, et al. v. Sheriff of the MTCC Branch 3, Cagayan de Oro City, et al., for injunction with damages, pending before the RTC (Rollo, p. 2).
On September 8, 2006, during a hearing on an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. 2006-176, Judge Pantanosas allegedly asked Atty. Pamatong to remove his copia (a hat worn by Muslims) in open court (Rollo, pp. 2-3).
Atty. Pamatong allegedly requested exemption from removal on religious grounds and due to embarrassment over his "bald pate" (Rollo, p. 3).
Judge Pantanosas allegedly permitted the request but warned that at the next hearing he would no longer tolerate wearing the copia inside the courtroom (Rollo).
On September 11, 2006, respondent filed an Extremely Urgent Motion/Demand for Inhibition or Recusal in Civil Case No. 2006-176 (the “Motion for Inhibition”), which contained among other things a direct and scurrilous accusation asserting that the judge “appears to be as corrupt as you are” and that he is “a disgrace to the Judicial System” and “does not deserved (sic) to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all” (Rollo, p. 8).
On the same day, Judge Pantanosas issued an Order denying the Motion for Inhibition for lack of basis, refuting allegations of abusive language and corruption, and ordering Atty. Pamatong to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court (Rollo, pp. 10-12).
Atty. Pamatong filed an Answer to the Order to Show Cause and a Motion for Reconsideration in compliance with the RTC’s directive (Rollo, pp. 37-39).
By way of counter-complaint in his Comment to the Disbarment Complaint, Atty. Pamatong alleged that he had filed a complaint with the OCA (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2541-RTJ) on September 12, 2006; that he filed complaints with the Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Ombudsman; and that in a meeting two days before the September 8 hearing Judge Pantanosas allegedly solicited One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for issuance of the TRO (Rollo, pp. 27-36; 29).
Atty. Pamatong maintained the truth of the bribery allegations and described Judge Pantanosas’ courtroom demeanor as overbearing, arrogant and derogatory (Rollo, pp. 17-18; 28-29).
A news article detailing the events that precipitated the bribery charge was published on September 15, 2006 with the participation of Atty. Pamatong (Decision).
The OCA dismissed Atty. Pamatong’s administrative complaint for lack of merit, noting the absence of evidence beyond bare allegations to prove bribery (Rollo, p. 224).
The Supreme Court record shows that the Motion for Inhibition containing offensive and accusatory language was part of the public court record (Rollo, p. 8).

Issues Presented

Whether respondent Atty. Elly L. Pamatong violated Rule 8.01 (Canon 8) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language in his Motion for Inhibition.
Whether respondent violated Rule 1.01 (Canon 1) and Rule 11.04 (Canon 11) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct, attributing motives to a judge not supported by the record, and causing publication or otherwise divulging bribery allegations in the media.
Whether respondent breached the Lawyer’s Oath and violated duties owed to the courts and the administration of justice.
What penalty is appropriate given the findings of professional misconduct and the circumstances of the case.

Legal Rules and Canons Cited in the Decision

Rule 8.01 (Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility) — “A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” (Rollo, fn. 12)
Rule 1.01 (Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility) — “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or dece