Besario v. Suario

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 8564. April 18, 2018.]

ROGELIO C. BESARIO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. LEONARDO D. SUARIO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 8564 (Rogelio C. Besario vs. Atty. Leonardo D. Suario). — For Resolution is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Rogelio C. Besario (Besario) against respondent Leonardo D. Suario (Suario), attorney-at-law, for allegedly engaging in offensive conduct during his cross-examination of the complainant in Civil Case No. 4870, tried before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Digos City.

First, the Court notes that in a Resolution dated April 28, 2010, We ordered the respondent to comment on the disbarment complaint against him. Respondent failed to comply with this order. Thus, in Our September 5, 2011 Resolution, We issued a show cause order against him. Still, respondent failed to file his comment, which prompted this Court, on January 30, 2013, to impose upon him a fine of P1,000. In Our Resolution dated February 23, 2015, due to the continued failure of the respondent to file his comment, We imposed another fine of P1,000. Because of his repeated failure to heed the orders of this Court, the fines imposed in the January 30, 2013 and February 23, 2015 Resolutions stand. However, the Court now resolves to DISPENSE with the filing of the comment, and proceed to evaluate the merits of the complaint.

To recall, complainant Besario was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 4870, a Complaint for Injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. In the hearing conducted on July 22, 2008, in relation to the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the testimony of Besario was presented, in the form of an affidavit. The counsel for the defendant, respondent Suario, commenced his cross-examination. In the course of the cross-examination, the exchange between Suario and Besario became heated to the point that Suario remarked that Besario was "boastful." This exchange prompted Besario to file the present administrative complaint on April 9, 2009, claiming that Suario insulted him in court, and that the latter's language was violative of his duty to uphold the dignity of the court. Thus, complainant prays that respondent be sanctioned for his unprofessional conduct.

We find, based on the allegations of the complaint, that while the comment made by respondent is indeed inappropriate, it was nevertheless made impulsively and was not deliberately made to hex, harass, or insult the complainant. The magnitude of the respondent's utterance does not warrant a disciplinary sanction, much less suspension or even disbarment.

Indeed, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides, in Rule 8.01 thereof, that "a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." The Court, however, ruled in Cruz v. Cabrera1 that:

Such single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent's suspension or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language.

In the case here, We find that the single utterance calling the complainant "boastful," made in the heated exchange of a cross-examination, is hardly contemptuous, much less libelous, as the complainant would have this Court rule. In fact, an examination of the transcript during that hearing reveals that when the counsel of herein complainant requested the cancellation of the manifestation of Suario calling the complainant boastful, the former immediately agreed. 2 This shows that indeed the inappropriate comment was merely made in the heat of the moment, and was not deliberately made to harass, libel, or badger the complainant. Hence, We rule that the comment does not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Nevertheless, We admonish the respondent for his inappropriate language. We remind him that lawyers, being licensed officers of the courts, are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession. They must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of a judicial forum. 3

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Leonardo D. Suario is DISMISSED for lack of merit. He is, however, admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer of the court.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. A.C. No. 5737, October 25, 2004.

2.Rollo, pp. 13-14.

3.Cruz, supra note 1.