A.C. No. 2339. February 24, 1984
JOSE M. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SABINO PADILLA, JR., RESPONDENT.
PLANA, J.:
from the practice of law for the use of insulting language in the course
of judicial proceedings.
As the material facts are not in dispute, we have deemed the case
submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.
Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same time,
one of the defendants) in Criminal Case No. 13331 for forcible entry
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan. Respondent was counsel
for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November 19, 1981,
while complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard
respondent say “bobo”. When complainant turned toward respondent, he
saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed and
humiliated in the presence of many people, complainant was unable to
proceed with his offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be
suspended.
While admitting the utterance, respondent denied having directed the
same at the complainant, claiming that what he said was “Ay, que bobo”,
referring to “the manner complainant was trying to inject wholly
irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record” while in the
process of making an offer of evidence. The statement of Atty. Castillo
referred to by respondent was:
“. . . The only reason why Atty. Jose Castillo was included in the
present complaint for ejectment was because defendant Erlinda Castillo
wife of this representation called up this representation at his house
and crying over the phone, claiming that Atty. Sabino Padilla was
harassing her and immediately, this representation like any good husband
would do in the defense of his wife immediately went to the school and
confronted Atty. Sabino Padilla, Jr. with a talk and asked for a yes or
no answer if he harassed the wife of this representation and if yes,
right then and there I would sock his face.”
Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20 (b)
and (f).) The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to
avoid all personalities between counsel. (Canon 17)
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering
evidence, the remark “bobo” or “Ay, que bobo” was offensive and uncalled
for. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant which such
cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing,
he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the
court. By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed to
measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal
profession, which all the more deserves reproach because this is not the
first time that respondent has employed offensive language in the
course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to
refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more
circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings. (CA-G.R. No. 09753-SP,
Court of Appeals; Civil Case No. C-7790 CFI of Caloocan.)
The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent’s
actuation was triggered by complainant’s own manifest hostility and
provocative remarks. Complainant is therefore not entirely free from
blame when respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of
improper words.
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is
directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a
repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.