In a ruling that underscores the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the case of Atty. Pedro B. Aguirre versus Atty. Crispin T. Reyes. The Court held that while zealous advocacy is expected, lawyers must maintain professional dignity and avoid abusive language. Atty. Reyes was found guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language and was fined, highlighting the balance between defending a client’s interests and upholding the standards of the legal profession. This decision serves as a reminder that ethical conduct is paramount, even amidst the heat of legal battles, ensuring that lawyers conduct themselves with respect and decorum.

Words Matter: How Far Can an Attorney Go in Defense of Their Client?

The case began nearly a quarter of a century ago when Atty. Pedro B. Aguirre filed a complaint against Atty. Crispin T. Reyes, alleging multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Aguirre contended that Atty. Reyes had breached several ethical rules, including making false claims, using abusive language, and engaging in forum-shopping. These accusations stemmed from memos and legal documents drafted by Atty. Reyes, as well as the filing of certain criminal cases.

Specifically, Atty. Aguirre claimed that Atty. Reyes violated Rule 3.01 by making false claims in a memo to the Board of Directors of Banco Filipino. This rule prohibits lawyers from using false, fraudulent, misleading, or self-laudatory statements regarding their qualifications or legal services. Additionally, Atty. Aguirre asserted that Atty. Reyes violated Rule 8.01 in relation to Rule 19.01 by using abusive and offensive language in a confidential memo and an amended complaint filed in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case. Rule 8.01 mandates that lawyers should not use abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in their professional dealings, while Rule 19.01 requires lawyers to employ fair and honest means to achieve their client’s objectives.

In his defense, Atty. Reyes argued that the language he used was appropriate and necessary to protect his client’s interests. He also filed a counter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Aguirre, alleging that Atty. Aguirre had engaged in unethical conduct related to the management of Banco Filipino assets. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court for resolution. Despite the initial complaint and counter-complaint, the IBP-CBD initially recommended dismissing both cases, citing the death of Atty. Aguirre and the advanced age of Atty. Reyes. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a disbarment case is sui generis and can proceed despite the complainant’s death.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a disbarment case is a unique proceeding aimed at determining whether a lawyer is still fit to practice law, irrespective of the complainant’s actions or status. The Court cited Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Celera, stating:

A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. The issue to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Hence, an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices.

Building on this principle, the Court noted that lawyers are officers of the court with peculiar duties and responsibilities. Membership in the bar imposes obligations to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and act honorably. The Court also referenced Tudtud v. Judge Coliflores, highlighting that in administrative cases, complainants are essentially witnesses, and their death does not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions.

We do not agree with the recommendation. The death of the complainant herein does not warrant the non-pursuance of the charges against respondent Judge. In administrative cases against public officers and employees, the complainants are, in a real sense, only witnesses. Hence, the unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an administrative complaint, or even his death, as in the case at bar, does not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions upon the parties subject to its administrative supervision.

In evaluating the specific charges against Atty. Reyes, the Court examined the evidence presented by Atty. Aguirre. While the Court acknowledged that Atty. Reyes’s statements in his memo were self-laudatory and undignified, there was insufficient evidence to prove they were false or misleading. The Court noted that allegations must be supported by substantial evidence.

However, the Court found Atty. Reyes liable for violating Rule 8.01 of the CPR due to the intemperate language used in his memo and amended complaint. The specific statements included claims of a “biggest bank fraud” and assertions about the moral character of the individuals involved. The Court emphasized that while lawyers may be forceful, their language should remain dignified and respectful, as the use of intemperate language has no place in the judicial forum. The Court in Saberon v. Atty. Larong stated:

Respecting respondent’s argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before the BSP were privileged, it suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment.

True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.

The Court concluded that Atty. Reyes’s statements were uncalled for, malicious, and constituted a personal attack, exceeding the bounds of relevancy. Thus, his actions constituted simple misconduct.

Regarding the charge of forum-shopping, the Court found that Atty. Aguirre failed to demonstrate how the filing of the twin criminal complaints enabled Atty. Reyes to obtain an improper advantage. The Court noted that the complaints pertained to distinct crimes—estafa and falsification—each requiring different elements for conviction, thus negating the element of identity of right or cause of action necessary for a finding of forum-shopping.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Atty. Crispin T. Reyes guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was fined P2,000.00. The Court absolved Atty. Reyes of the charges of forum-shopping and other alleged violations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Crispin T. Reyes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using intemperate language and engaging in forum-shopping. The Court focused on the ethical boundaries of zealous advocacy.
What is Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 8.01 states that a lawyer shall not, in their professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. This rule aims to maintain the dignity of the legal profession.
What is the definition of forum-shopping?	Forum-shopping is the act of filing multiple suits involving the same parties and causes of action in different courts, hoping to obtain a favorable ruling in one of them. It is prohibited as it undermines the judicial process.
What does it mean for a case to be sui generis?	Sui generis means “of its own kind” or unique. In legal terms, it indicates that a case is distinct and not easily classified under standard categories, requiring a unique approach.
Why did the death of the complainant not stop the case?	The Court emphasized that a disbarment case is sui generis, an investigation into the fitness of a lawyer to practice law. The death of the complainant does not automatically warrant dismissal.
What quantum of evidence is required in disbarment suits?	The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in disbarment cases is substantial evidence. This means that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Reyes?	Atty. Reyes was found guilty of simple misconduct and was fined P2,000.00 for using intemperate language in violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What should lawyers avoid in their professional dealings?	Lawyers should avoid using abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language. They should also refrain from making false or misleading statements and engaging in forum-shopping.
How does this case impact the legal profession?	This case reminds lawyers to balance zealous advocacy with professional conduct, ensuring dignity and respect in their dealings. It reinforces ethical standards within the legal profession.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers, balancing zealous advocacy with the need to maintain professional dignity. It serves as a guide for legal professionals, reminding them that while defending their client’s interests, they must adhere to the standards of the legal profession. Lawyers must strive for forceful yet respectful communication, ensuring the integrity of the judicial process and their professional reputation.

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. PEDRO B. AGUIRRE VS. ATTY. CRISPIN T. REYES, A.C. No. 4355, January 08, 2020