The Supreme Court held that lawyers must maintain respectful language in their legal documents, even when advocating for their clients. Using offensive or abusive language is considered professional misconduct, undermining the dignity of the legal profession. While lawyers can vigorously defend their clients, they must do so with courtesy and avoid unnecessary and irrelevant derogatory remarks.

When Advocacy Becomes Abuse: The Line Between Zealous Representation and Disrespectful Language

This case arose from a complaint filed by Jose C. Saberon against Atty. Fernando T. Larong, who was accused of using abusive and offensive language in pleadings submitted to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Saberon had filed a petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and Alfredo Tan Bonpin, alleging the bank’s refusal to return certain checks and land titles. Atty. Larong, representing the bank, responded with an answer that included the term “blackmail” to characterize Saberon’s suit.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Larong’s use of the word “blackmail” in his pleadings constituted professional misconduct. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues and avoid abusive or offensive language. Canon 11 of the Code requires lawyers to maintain respect towards the courts and judicial officers, abstaining from scandalous or offensive behavior.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended that Atty. Larong be suspended, finding the term “blackmail” to be inappropriate and offensive. The IBP Board of Governors, however, disagreed and dismissed the case. Dissatisfied, Saberon appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while lawyers are expected to advocate for their clients with vigor, this does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. The Court noted that there are countless ways to be emphatic and convincing without resorting to derogatory terms. The Court underscored that the dignity of the legal profession requires lawyers to use dignified language, even in their pleadings.

The Court acknowledged Atty. Larong’s argument that the statements were privileged as they were made during legal proceedings. However, the Court clarified that such privilege extends only to matters that are relevant and pertinent to the subject of inquiry. It was determined that characterizing the petition as “blackmail” was not legitimately related to the issues before the BSP. The Court pointed out that matters concerning Bonpin’s alleged alien citizenship were already amply discussed without the need for further accusations.

Considering the circumstances and Atty. Larong’s apologies, the Supreme Court found him guilty of simple misconduct rather than grave misconduct. The Court considered that he had been a lawyer for only two years when he used the intemperate language, and had expressed his remorse for the incident.

In disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court weighs several factors. While a lawyer’s duty is to zealously represent their client, they are still required to act within the bounds of the law. Zealous representation must be balanced against the attorney’s duties to the legal profession and the administration of justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Larong’s use of the term “blackmail” in his pleadings constituted professional misconduct. The Court evaluated whether it violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What does the Code of Professional Responsibility say about a lawyer’s language?	The Code requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor. They are prohibited from using abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in their professional dealings.
Did the Court consider the statements privileged since they were made in legal proceedings?	Yes, the Court considered the statements but clarified that privilege only extends to matters that are relevant and pertinent to the subject of inquiry. The “blackmail” allegation was deemed not relevant to the BSP’s investigation.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Larong guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language and fined him P2,000 with a stern warning. The petition for disbarment was denied.
What factors did the Court consider in determining the penalty?	The Court considered Atty. Larong’s relatively short time in the profession at the time of the incident, his expression of remorse, and the fact that this was considered simple misconduct, not grave.
Why did the Court reject the IBP’s dismissal of the case?	The Court found that the IBP’s dismissal lacked the necessary explanation of facts and reasons as required by the Rules of Court. The Court had to emphasize this lack of adherence to procedure on the part of IBP.
What is the test of relevancy in determining if allegedly defamatory matters are privileged?	The matter must be legitimately related to the issues or so pertinent that it may become the subject of inquiry during the trial. If no reasonable person can doubt the irrelevance and impropriety, the privilege does not extend.
What are some examples of intemperate or offensive language?	While the case specifically addresses the term “blackmail,” intemperate language includes any language that is abusive, scandalous, menacing, or disrespectful. Such language degrades the proceedings and the legal profession.

This case underscores the importance of civility and respect within the legal profession. Lawyers have a duty to advocate for their clients effectively, but not at the expense of ethical conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that lawyers must use language that is dignified and relevant to the issues at hand, upholding the integrity of the legal system.

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: Jose C. Saberon v. Atty. Fernando T. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008