In Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. v. Atty. Rizal P. Balbin, the Supreme Court held that lawyers must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues, avoiding harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The Court suspended Atty. Rizal P. Balbin from the practice of law for two years after he was found to have intimidated, harassed, and threatened opposing counsel, Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr., instead of pursuing appropriate legal remedies. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and adhering to the Code of Professional Responsibility, emphasizing that lawyers must respect each other and the judicial process.

When Zealous Advocacy Crosses the Line: Respecting Colleagues in the Legal Arena

The case began when Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Rizal P. Balbin, alleging unprofessional conduct. Roque claimed that Balbin, after Roque secured a favorable judgment for his client in a civil case, engaged in a series of intimidating, harassing, and threatening actions aimed at coercing Roque to withdraw the case. These actions included numerous phone calls, text messages, and emails to Roque, his friends, and other clients, threatening disbarment and criminal suits. Balbin also threatened to publicize these suits to damage Roque’s reputation, given his high profile. This behavior prompted Roque to seek disciplinary action against Balbin, leading to the investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The IBP, after investigation, found Balbin administratively liable. The Investigating Commissioner noted that instead of using procedural remedies to challenge the adverse ruling against his client, Balbin resorted to crude and underhanded tactics, personally attacking Roque. This was deemed a gross violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandates courtesy, fairness, and candor towards professional colleagues, and prohibits harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to suspend Balbin from the practice of law, leading to the Supreme Court’s review of the matter.

The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court with specific duties and responsibilities. They must maintain the dignity of the legal profession through honorable and fair conduct. Canon 8 of the CPR explicitly states:

CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

The Court cited established case law, noting that lawyers must treat each other with courtesy, dignity, and civility, and that undue ill feeling between clients should not influence the conduct of their counsels. The Court highlighted that mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations, and offensive behavior among lawyers detract from the dignity of the profession and constitute unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

In Balbin’s case, the Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that his tactics against Roque violated Canon 8 of the CPR. Instead of pursuing appropriate legal remedies, Balbin engaged in personal attacks, repeatedly intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing Roque with threats of administrative and criminal cases, as well as prejudicial media exposure. The Court found that these actions were a misuse of legal processes, designed to harass the opposing party rather than seek justice according to the law.

The Court also emphasized that Balbin’s actions violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR. Canon 19 requires lawyers to represent their clients with zeal within the bounds of the law, prioritizing the administration of justice over the client’s success. Rule 19.01 commands lawyers to use only fair and honest means to achieve their client’s objectives and prohibits threatening unfounded criminal charges to gain an improper advantage.

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law,” reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a “lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain  an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.” Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer’s client.

The Court referred to Aguilar-Dyquiangco v. Arellano to reinforce this principle, emphasizing that lawyers should not threaten to file baseless criminal cases to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases. Furthermore, Balbin aggravated his administrative liability by seeking an extension to file a comment but failing to do so, ignoring multiple directives from the Court, which led to fines and an arrest order. This demonstrated disrespect to the judicial institution and violated Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR, which require lawyers to respect the courts, assist in the speedy administration of justice, and avoid undue delays.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court considered similar cases where lawyers made personal attacks against opposing counsel. The Court cited Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., where a lawyer was suspended for filing a baseless civil suit against opposing counsel to gain leverage in a separate case. It also cited Vaflor-Fabroa v. Paguinto, where a lawyer was suspended for filing baseless complaints and failing to file a comment in the administrative case against her. Taking these precedents into account, the Court deemed it appropriate to increase the penalty for Balbin to a suspension from the practice of law for two years, emphasizing that such behavior warranted a strong disciplinary measure to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Rizal P. Balbin should be administratively sanctioned for engaging in harassing and intimidating tactics against opposing counsel, Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr., instead of pursuing appropriate legal remedies. The Supreme Court examined whether Balbin’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What specific actions did Atty. Balbin take that led to the complaint?	Atty. Balbin repeatedly contacted Atty. Roque, his friends, and clients via phone, text, and email, threatening disbarment and criminal suits. He also threatened to publicize these suits to damage Roque’s reputation, aiming to coerce Roque into withdrawing a case against Balbin’s client.
Which provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Balbin violate?	Atty. Balbin violated Canon 8 (courtesy, fairness, and candor towards professional colleagues), Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 (fair and honest means to attain client’s objectives), Canon 11 and 12, Rule 12.03 and 12.04 (respect to courts and speedy administration of justice).
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Balbin?	Atty. Balbin was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately upon his receipt of the Supreme Court’s decision. He was also sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
What does Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require?	Canon 8 requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their professional colleagues and to avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. It aims to maintain a respectful and professional environment within the legal community.
How did the IBP contribute to this case?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint against Atty. Balbin, finding him administratively liable. The IBP’s Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted in toto before the case reached the Supreme Court.
Why did the Supreme Court increase the penalty recommended by the IBP?	The Supreme Court increased the penalty to a two-year suspension, referencing similar cases where lawyers engaged in personal attacks against opposing counsel. The Court emphasized the need for a strong disciplinary measure to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and judicial process.
What is the significance of this ruling for lawyers in the Philippines?	This ruling serves as a reminder to lawyers in the Philippines to adhere to the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly regarding their interactions with opposing counsel. It reinforces the importance of maintaining respect, fairness, and civility in the legal profession.

This case serves as a critical reminder that zealous advocacy must remain within the bounds of ethical conduct and legal principles. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that lawyers must prioritize respect, fairness, and adherence to the Code of Professional Responsibility in their dealings with colleagues, ensuring the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. The penalty imposed on Atty. Balbin sends a clear message that harassing or intimidating behavior towards opposing counsel will not be tolerated.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. v. Atty. Rizal P. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 04, 2018