SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11885. October 11, 2021.]
ROBERT G. BRIANT, complainant,vs. ATTY. JEANIE S. PULIDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 October 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11885(Robert G. Briant v. Atty. Jeanie S. Pulido). — Robert G. Briant (Briant), an American national, filed a verified complaint 1 against Atty. Jeanie S. Pulido (Atty. Pulido) for alleged libelous statements contained in her November 28, 2014 letter 2 (subject letter) and for committing malicious acts unbecoming of a lawyer.
In his verified complaint, 3 Briant averred that he was a client of Dr. Minda Luz Manas (Dr. Manas), who sought Atty. Pulido's legal representation. He alleged that Atty. Pulido wrote him the subject letter copy furnished to several agencies including the Bureau of Immigration, which contained false and injurious statements. 4 HTcADC
In an Order 5 dated March 25, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline directed Atty. Pulido to submit her Answer.
In her Answer, 6 Atty. Pulido denied defaming Briant's character. 7 She recalled that Briant consulted with Dr. Manas in Healthway Clinic on May 25, 2013 regarding the refilling of his maintenance medicine. Briant showed a letter from his doctor in the United States of America indicating the latter's neuropsychological findings. However, Dr. Manas advised that she needed to examine him first before she can issue a refill prescription because his maintenance medicine is a regulated drug in the Philippines. After she examined Briant, Dr. Manas issued a prescription good for 30 days. Briant paid Dr. Manas P2,000.00 as her professional fee. He also asked whether he could come back just for refill prescription, but Dr. Manas reiterated that she needed to evaluate him first before she could give him a refill prescription. 8
Briant returned to consult with Dr. Manas after a month. Since Dr. Manas already left the clinic, the receptionist informed her that Briant was asking for a refill of his maintenance medicine. Dr. Manas returned to the clinic to see Briant who insisted that he only needed a refill of his prescription. Still, Dr. Manas examined Briant before giving him a refill. Briant again paid Dr. Manas P2,000.00 as professional fee. Briant also requested for a medical abstract which Dr. Manas provided free of charge. 9
On July 1, 2013, Briant lodged with Office Manager of the Healthway Clinic a complaint 10 against Dr. Manas for twice subjecting him to examination even though he only needed a refill of his medicine. On July 4, 2013, he also filed a complaint 11 against Dr. Manas before the Philippine Psychiatric Association (PPA) for allegedly extorting the amount of P4,000.00 from him. He demanded payment of P5,000.00 representing the P4,000.00 which he paid to Dr. Manas, and an additional P1,000.00 which he would use to pay another doctor. 12
Atty. Pulido further recounted that on July 10, 2013, Briant sent text messages to Dr. Manas asking for an out-of-court settlement. 13 He also sent an email 14 to the PPA requiring immediate payment of his claim. Then on October 14, 2013, he sent another email 15 to the Makati Medical Center (MMC) relating his experience with Dr. Manas, after he knew that the latter was affiliated with MMC. 16
Atty. Pulido also disclosed that on June 17, 2014, the PPA absolved Dr. Manas of improper or unethical behavior. 17 Despite this, Briant continued to demand payment of P12,000.00, and reported her to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Department of Justice (DOJ). 18 In light of these acts of harassment, Dr. Manas sought Atty. Pulido's legal assistance. 19
As counsel for Dr. Manas, Atty. Pulido wrote Briant the subject letter, copy furnished to the DOJ Action Center, 20 the PPA, 21 the Philippine Medical Association, 22 the Philippine College of Physicians, 23 the Professional Regulatory Commission, 24 and the Bureau of Immigration. 26
For reference, the subject letter is quoted below:
Dear Mr. Briant,
I am writing in behalf of my client Dr. Minda Luz Manas in connection with your persistent baseless and malicious demand for the payment to you of the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php12,000.00).
The facts upon which you are basing your baseless claim for the payment to you of the amount of Php12,000, are very clear.
• You came to Healthway (Alabang) and had a consultation with my client on 25 May 2013. You showed my client letters from your US doctors and you insisted that you just needed a refill of your valium prescription. My client told you that she must evaluate you (because valium is a regulated drug) and she did evaluate you on said date. My client thereafter wrote you a prescription for valium good for 30 days. You paid my client her Php2,000 consultation fee. You asked my client whether you can come back next time for just a refill prescription but my client told you that she must see you again, before she can write a refill prescription.
• On 29 June 2013, you returned to Healthway but you failed to see my client because she had already left Healthway. The receptionist at Healthway called up my client to inform her that you are at Healthway and demanding a refill of your prescription. My client returned to Healthway, just to see you. My client saw you and you insisted that you just needed a refill of your prescription. My client informed you again that she cannot just give you a refill of your prescription without evaluating you because valium is a regulated drug. My client evaluated you and thereafter, she gave you a refill of your valium prescription. My client charged you the amount of Php2,000. You thereafter demanded that you be provided a copy of your medical abstract which my client readily provided you, free of charge.
On 01 July 2013, you returned to Healthway and spoke to the Office Manager. You reported your complaint against my client and you demanded that you be reimbursed the amount of Php5,000 representing the total amount of Php4,000 you had paid to my client and the additional amount of Php1,000 which you would pay, to see another doctor. You even gave my client until 06 July 2013 to reimburse you the amount of Php5,000. My client ignored your demand for payment of Php5,000 because clearly, your claim has no factual and legal basis. You had a consultation with a medical doctor and you benefited from it and yet you expect to be reimbursed what you had paid. You even expected my client to pay for your cost of seeing another doctor. aScITE
On 04 July 2013, you lodged a formal complaint against my client involving the same incident with the Philippine Psychiatric Association (PPA). You reiterated your demand for payment of Php5,000. In your formal complaint, you clearly defamed my client and besmirched her reputation when you stated in your complaint that my client EXTORTED the amount of Php4,000 from you. Apart from your aforesaid formal complaint, on 10 July 2013 you sent numerous text messages to my client demanding an "out of court settlement." On 11 July 2013, you gave my client again a deadline of until 11 a.m. of that day to settle your claim. My client ignored your baseless demand.
Not contented with the complaint you filed against my client with the Philippine Psychiatric Association, you sent an email to the Makati Medical Center where my client also holds clinic. In one of your letters, you increased your demand to Php12,000 and you again gave my client a deadline of until 10 October 2014, within which to pay your new demand, otherwise, you would see my client in court.
The Philippine Psychiatric Association has ruled on your complaint against my client as early as 17 June 2014. The association absolved my client of any improper or unethical behavior. Upon receipt of the ruling on your complaint, you wrote the association to inform them that you can file a complaint against my client at PRC but you will wait to do so until after you and Dr. Manas have an "arbitrary meeting" in person. You have likewise been repeatedly threatening my client that you would report her to our Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Department of Justice and the Philippine Medical Association.
Notwithstanding the fact that my client had been ignoring your demand for payment of your claim for more than a year already, today, 25 November 2014, you sent an email to my client through the Philippine Psychiatric Association wherein you stated that you have already prepared a binding agreement between you and my client regarding your money claim, for my client's consideration before your "upcoming meeting."
Regarding your demand for payment of the amount of Php12,000, and for an "arbitrary meeting" with my client, my client wishes to convey to you that she is not paying you a single cent and that she will never heed your demand for an "arbitrary meeting" because you have nothing to talk about. If you wish to file a case against my client, you may do so but bear in mind that my client is prepared to file a counterclaim against you and she would exhaust all legal means to hold you liable for moral and exemplary damages and the legal costs she would incur in defending herself against your baseless and malicious claim.
Regarding your persistent malicious imputations of wrongdoing against my client, should you persist in maligning my client's name through any means and should you not refrain from harassing her by your persistent emails and text messages demand for payment of your baseless claim, I have instructions to prepare a criminal complaint against you for your malicious imputations of wrongdoing against my client and besmirching her reputation. These are very evident in the formal complaint you filed against my client with the Philippine Psychiatric Association and the emails you sent to the association, your email to Makati Medical Center, and your text messages to my client. Furthermore, my client would not hesitate to file a case against you before our Bureau of Immigration and have you declared as an undesirable alien because clearly, you have not conducted yourself in a manner befitting a tourist or an immigrant to the Philippines.
I trust that I have made my client's position on all of the above issues, clear and that you would see your way clear on these issues for your own good because henceforth, my client would no longer tolerate your baseless and malicious ramblings.
Very truly yours,
(signed)27
Atty. Pulido further explained that she thought it best to furnish said agencies of the subject letter to confirm the truth about Briant's claim that he lodged a complaint against Dr. Manas before the aforementioned offices. She also notified the Bureau of Immigration to apprise the agency of a tourist's disrespectful behavior and harassment towards Dr. Manas. 28 Atty. Pulido pointed out that the subject letter and the acts complained of were dictated by reason, logic, service and truth, and were not intended to besmirch Briant's character or reputation. 29 HEITAD
The Mandatory Conference/Hearing was initially set on June 23, 2015 and the parties were directed to submit their respective mandatory conference briefs. 30 On said date, only Atty. Pulido appeared. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline gave Briant another chance to submit his mandatory conference brief. 31 However, only Atty. Pulido attended the mandatory conference/hearing set on July 14, 2016. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline then ordered the submission of verified position papers, with warning that the case would be submitted for report and recommendation with or without the position paper of the parties. 32 On August 1, 2016, Atty. Pulido submitted her Position Paper 33 reiterating and expounding the salient points contained in her Answer.
Report and Recommendation of
In its Report and Recommendation 34 dated September 15, 2016, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against Atty. Pulido. 35 It noted that the subject letter was fair, honest, and within the bounds of law. Moreover, Briant failed to adduce adequate proof to support his claim, hence, the presumption that Atty. Pulido acted in accordance with the lawyer's oath remained. 36 The IBP CBD emphasized that the complainant in an administrative case against a lawyer bears the burden of proof to establish the misconduct. Failing to do so would merit a dismissal of the case and absolution of the lawyer who is presumed to have acted in accordance with the lawyer's oath. 37
On November 5, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP CBD to dismiss the administrative case against Atty. Pulido. 38
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Pulido violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in view of the subject letter addressed to Briant.
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the administrative complaint against Atty. Pulido.
In administrative and disbarment cases against lawyers, the complainant has the burden of proof to establish the culpability of the lawyer by presenting the facts surrounding one's allegation and by producing substantial evidence thereof. 39 The rule of thumb is that lawyers are presumed innocent and have acted pursuant to the mandate of their oath unless the contrary is proven. 40
The nature of such cases is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. These cases are rather sui generis where the court investigates whether the complained conduct is befitting of a member of the bar. 41 The complainant stands as a mere witness and no private interest is involved. 42 Hence, the investigation and proceedings continue even if the complainant desisted, failed to prosecute the case, or if the respondent neglected to participate in the proceedings. 43
Briant filed this complaint against Atty. Pulido but failed to attend the mandatory conference/hearing and to abide by the required submissions of the IBP. Despite this, the IBP proceeded in its investigation and recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Pulido for lack of merit and factual basis. As found by the IBP, Briant failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove his allegations. 44
Briant's assertion that the subject letter, written by Atty. Pulido on behalf of her client Dr. Manas, contained libelous and defamatory statements of his character, 45 fails to persuade. We carefully examined the subject letter and found that Atty. Pulido's language, tone and choice of words were not defamatory, injurious or derogatory of one's character. Atty. Pulido merely narrated the series of interactions between Briant and Dr. Manas. 46 She informed Briant of her client's action and recourse in case Briant persists in his acts. 47 Contrary to the contention of Briant, Atty. Pulido acted in accordance with Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the CPR, which reads:
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 — 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.
Atty. Pulido's statements were firm and convincing and not distasteful, offensive, abusive, or improper. Clearly, she comported herself professionally. As we held in Lim v. Mendoza: 48
Lawyers are instructed to be gracious and must use such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. Our language is rich with expressions that are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. 49 (Citation omitted)
By communicating to Briant through the subject letter, Atty. Pulido employed fair and honest means in order to prevent further acts of harassment directed at her client, Dr. Manas. The subject letter, its contents, and furnishing copies thereof to select agencies, were all above board and not violative of any law or procedure. Absent other evidence pointing to demeaning actuations, Atty. Pulido's conduct is presumed to be fair, just, legal, upright and pursuant to the lawyer's oath. 50
All lawyers are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal profession by their proper deportment not just in dealing with courts and clients, but also in their conduct towards the opposing party and counsel. 51 Atty. Pulido acted appropriately in handling her client's cause, and dealt with Briant professionally through the subject letter. There being no defamatory statements in the subject letter and no other demeaning conduct were proven by Briant, Atty. Pulido should be absolved of the administrative complaint against her. 52 ATICcS
While this Court is duty-bound to cleanse the legal profession by disciplining erring members of the bar to the extent of disbarment as penalty, this Court will likewise protect lawyers and legal practitioners from unsubstantiated allegations by dismissing administrative or disbarment cases, as in this case. 53
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Atty. Jeanie S. Pulido is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (SAJ. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
2.Id. at 15-18.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 14.
5.Id. at 25.
6.Id. at 26-36.
7.Id. at 26.
8.Id. at 26-27.
9.Id. at 27.
10.Id. at 28.
11.Id. at 43-45.
12.Id. at 28.
13.Id. at 49.
14.Id. at 54.
15.Id. at 52.
16.Id. at 29-30.
17.Id. at 30. See also Id. at 53.
18.Id. at 31.
19.Id. at 30-32.
20.Id. at 61.
21.Id. at 62.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 17-18.
27.Id. at 15-18.
28.Id. at 32.
29.Id. at 34-35.
30.Id. at 75.
31.Id. at 84.
32.Id. at 87.
33.Id. at 88-99.
34.Id. at 142-144; penned by Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay.
35.Id. at 144.
36.Id.
37.Id. at 143-144.
38.Id. at 140-141.
39.Gow v. De Leon, A.C. No. 12713, September 23, 2020, citing Ick v. Atty. Amazona, A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020.
40.Id., citing Yagong v. City Prosecutor Magno, 820 Phil. 291, 294 (2017).
41.Yoshimura v. Panagsagan, A.C. No. 10962, September 11, 2018.
42.Ochoa, Jr. v. Dy Buco, G.R. Nos. 216634 & 216636, October 14, 2020.
43.Supra note 41.
44.Rollo, p. 144.
45.Id. at 14.
46.Id. at 15-17.
47.Id. at 17.
48. A.C. No. 10261, July 16, 2019.
49.Id.
50.Tan vs. Atty. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.
51.Atty. Nava II vs. Atty. Artuz, A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020.
52.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
53.Biliran vs. Bantugan, A.C. No. 8451, September 30, 2020.