Dimaculangan v. Jurado

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12359. April 8, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5178]

ATTY. GIRLIE Y. DIMACULANGAN, petitioner, vs.ATTYS. CYRUS D. JURADO AND TEODORO S. STA. ANA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 8, 2019which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12359 [formerly CBD Case No. 16-5178] (Atty. Girlie Y. Dimaculangan vs. Attys. Cyrus D. Jurado and Teodoro S. Sta. Ana)

The instant administrative case was filed by complainant Atty. Girlie Dimaculangan (Dimaculangan) against Attys. Cyrus D. Jurado (Jurado) and Teodoro S. Sta. Ana (Sta. Ana) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on the ground of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in relation to Canon 8, 1 Rule 8.01 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On November 14, 2016, Dimaculangan was inside the courtroom of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila. Dimaculangan, and other lawyers present in the courtroom, was informed that the scheduled proceedings were postponed because the presiding judge was in a seminar at the Supreme Court. 3

While waiting for the court staff to re-set the scheduled proceedings, Jurado entered the courtroom, where he and Dimaculangan engaged in a casual conversation. Thereafter, Sta. Ana arrived at the courtroom looking angry and shouted at Dimaculangan saying:

I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU DID GIRLIE!

Nakadalawa ka na . . . imagine you will ask for a resetting tapos dadating kayo. Papaano kung hindi kami dumating, then your camp will move that the cross examination be deemed waived? 4

Sta. Ana was referring to proceedings of another pending suit, in which they were opposing counsels to the party litigants.

Dimaculangan calmly replied to Sta. Ana saying that it was "speculative" of him to make such claims. 5

Sta. Ana went on scolding Dimaculangan for her actions in filing a motion to the main case when there was still a pending Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Dimaculangan tried to explain that the motion she filed and the Petition for Certiorari tackled different issues. Regardless of the explanation, Sta. Ana went on threatening Dimaculangan that if her client does not drop the case, he will pursue the administrative case he filed against Dimaculangan's collaborating counsel. 6 CAIHTE

After the exchange between Dimaculangan and Sta. Ana, the latter proceeded to talk to Jurado.

Dimaculangan was surprised and humiliated by Sta. Ana's public confrontation in the courtroom. She claims that Sta. Ana disrespected her as a lawyer and accused her of asking for a reset in bad faith. Dimaculangan explained that the confusion on the postponement of hearings complained by Sta. Ana was due to a misunderstanding with her client on their schedules and that such was an inadvertent mistake. She claimed having sleepless nights and suffering from episodes of "emotional disturbances" due to the incident. 7

Dimaculangan also claims that Jurado impliedly threatened to file an administrative case against her. She claims that Atty. Jurado mentioned of filing administrative cases against other lawyers and even bragged about his seeking judges to inhibit from cases that he is handling. 8

On December 2, 2016, Dimaculangan filed the instant administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. In an Evaluation Compliance, 9 IBP Commissioner Attorney Narciso A. Tadeo recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Sta. Ana and Jurado. Commissioner Tadeo found no factual or legal basis to hold respondents administratively liable. The IBP stated that the conduct of Sta. Ana was an "adverse reaction and emotional attitude" for the admitted mistakes of Dimaculangan, particularly on her "questionable motions for postponements." The IBP also found the statements of Dimaculangan as self-serving. 10

In a Resolution 11 dated January 26, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the recommendation of the IBP Commissioner and dismissed Dimaculangan's complaint for lack of merit.

Ruling of the Court

Membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations to one another. These include observance of honorable, candid and courteous dealings with other lawyers, 12 as provided in Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

From the facts, Sta. Ana's remarks against Dimaculangan in front of other lawyers exhibit unprofessional conduct. While he may be frustrated of Dimaculangan's actuations, this does not excuse him from not treating his opposing counsel with courtesy, dignity and civility. Aside from scolding Dimaculangan, Sta. Ana also publicly berated the former by saying that she erroneously filed a motion in the main case despite pendency of a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. This criticism was uncalled for considering that Dimaculangan was only performing her legal duty of protecting the interest of a client. Sta. Ana's fault-finding remarks betray lack of understanding of the lawyer's duties to the client.

For emphasis, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. DETACa

Sta. Ana's foregoing actions do not measure up to this Canon. A cordial and collaborative atmosphere among lawyers is expected in the practice of law. Sta. Ana could have privately aired his exasperation with Dimaculangan. Dimaculangan even exercised efforts to maintain camaraderie amongst her fellow members of the bar by writing an apology letter 13 immediately after the confrontation at the postponed hearing. Despite this letter, however, Sta. Ana let his "emotional attitude" get the better of him. To Our mind, such unprofessional behavior must be reproached.

Anent the incidents against Jurado, this Court does not find any participation in the confrontation between Dimaculangan and Sta. Ana. The allegations of Dimaculangan do not show that Jurado threatened to file administrative case against her. In fact, the affidavit of Dimaculangan's husband does not corroborate the allegations of Dimaculangan, except that Jurado was also present at the time of the confrontation.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Resolution dated January 26, 2017 is SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Teodoro S. Sta. Ana is hereby found GUILTY for violation of Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Attorney Cyrus D. Jurado is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court resolves to NOTE the Notice of Resolution dated January 26, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in his undated evaluation compliance dismissing the complaint, transmitted by letter dated October 23, 2018 of Director Marlou B. Ubano, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and compact disc containing the PDF file of the case.

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

2. Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

3.Rollo, p. 2.

4.Id. at 3.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 4-5, 11-12.

7.Id. at 5.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 34.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 32-33.

12. Agpalo, R., Comments on the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, 2004 Ed., p. 73.

13.Rollo, p. 9.