Estrella Ochida vs. Honesto Cabarroguis

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1594 May 7, 1976

ESTRELLA OCHIDA, complainant, HONESTO CABARROGUIS, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.:

Estrella Ochida is the defendant in Civil Case No. 529 of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Tagum Branch IX. That case was filed against her by the heirs of Felipe Cordova.

On September 24, 1975 Atty. Honesto Cabarroguis, the counsel for the heirs, while arguing a motion in the said case characterized Mrs. Ochida as a "fugitive from justice". He said:

Atty. Cabarroguis: That is not the point. There are matters here which have become moot and academic because the Director of Forestry has already ordered it. So what is left in fact before the Honorable Court is our claim for Estrella Ochida to render an accounting and for us to get the court's approval of the revocation so that she can not continue representing the heirs of Felipe Cordova in public.

As Atty. Arro stated, Estrella Ochida is in Manila. As a matter of fact, we can safely say she is a fugitive from justice because there are five (5) warrants of arrest pending against her.

Atty. Arro: We object to that manifestation, Your Honor. It is off-tangent. We move that the same, Your Honor, be stricken off from the records.

Court: I hope the counsels will stick to the matters ... Strike it off from the records.

Mrs. Ochida resented the characterization that she was a "fugitive from justice". She regarded it as a verification or calumny. On October 8, 1975 she filed in the lower court a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Cabarroguis. It was forwarded to this Court.

The respondent in his comment invoked the rule that the relevant utterances of judges, lawyers and witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. He alleged that the statement complained of was pertinent to the case because he wanted to underscore Mrs. Ochida's dilatory tactics; that the truth was that she was charged with estafa in five cases, and that the special counsel of the Provincial Fiscal's Office of Davao del Norte in his resolution dated November 26, 1975 dismissed her complaint against Atty. Cabarroguis for grave oral defamation in connection with the same statement.

The respondent further pointed out that Mrs. Ochida's complaint against him for damages in the sum of P132,000, also in connection with the same utterance, was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Davao in its order dated December 3, 1975 in Civil Case No. 710.

He claimed that the criminal and civil complaints as well as the instant disbarment charge were filed in bad faith and were intended to harass him.

Mrs. Ochida in her reply contended that respondent's imputation against her was not relevant; that it was inaccurate because she had posted the corresponding bail bonds, and that she appealed from the order dismissing her complaint for damages.

The issue is whether the respondent committed a gross misconduct which justifies disciplinary action against him.

A lawyer should treat the opposite party or suitor "with fairness and due consideration" and should avoid offensive personalities and improper speech against an opposing litigant (Par. 18, Canons of Professional Ethics).

The respondent lawyer used abrasive language in branding Mrs. Ochida as a "fugitive from justice", an expression which, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, refers to "one who having committed or being accused of a crime in one jurisdiction is absent for any reason from that jurisdiction; specifically: one who flees to avoid punishment". A lawyer with a keen sense of decorum and propriety would have avoided such intemperate language.

On the other hand, it is believable that the respondent, irked by the alibis interposed by opposing counsel that Mrs. Ochida was "out of town" or was in Manila, lost his cool and was provoked to resort to strong language against her.

"Undoubtedly, lawyers should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold." As felicitously observed in a case, "for the felicity of their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of phrase" (Dorado vs. Pilar, 104 Phil 743, 748).

Respondent's infelicitous utterance does not constitute gross misconduct Hence, no disciplinary action is called for. He is warned that the use of offensive language should be avoided and that a repetition of that impropriety would be dealt with more severely (Dorado vs. Pilar, supra; Deles vs. Aragona, Jr., Administrative Case No. 598, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 633).

The complaint in this case is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, Actg. C.J. Barredo, Actg. (Chairman), Antonio and Martin JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., is on leave.