THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13149. September 19, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5507]
ATTY. BILLY G. FORTES, complainant, vs.ATTY. JULIUS LOREN C. SANTOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 19, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 13149 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5507] (Atty. Billy G. Fortes, Complainant, vs. Atty. Julius Loren C. Santos, Respondent). — Before the Court is a Complaint 1 dated October 26, 2017 filed by Atty. Billy G. Fortes (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Julius Loren C. Santos (respondent) for his offensive and derogatory remark against complainant in violation of' Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). aScITE
In particular, respondent, in paragraph 12 (e) of the Petition for Certiorari2 filed before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152103 entitled, "Jing-Hung Technology Philippines Corporation, et al. v. Geronimo, et al.," alleged that complainant induced his clients to extort money from respondent's client and that complainant was already lusting for his attorney's fees in the subject labor cases, to wit: 3
12. Here, the Petitioners are likewise in good faith, because it is shown that:
xxx xxx xxx
e. The Petitioner had done everything it can to be lenient with Private Respondents and Ayad, but since they were induced by their counsel, Atty. Fortes [complainant], to pursue the extortion that they have already initiated, there is no turning back for them, and they will continue to malign the good name and reputation of the Company and their lies and fallacies. Evidently, Atty. Fortes [complainant], who is behind all this modus operandi, is already lusting for his attorney's fees, at the expense of Petitioner. 4 (Italics supplied) aScITE
In his Answer 5 dated February 20, 2018, respondent explained that the foregoing statements were based on actual facts which happened during the proceedings before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in connection with the cases that they (complainant and respondent) were both handling for their respective clients. 6 Respondent admitted that the words he used may have come off as harsh, but were said only due to his passion in advocating his client's interest. 7
Complainant thereafter filed a Reply, 8 to which respondent filed his Rejoinder. 9
IBP Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 10 dated June 15, 2018, Investigating Commissioner Cesare Napolione S. Sta. Romana noted that respondent repeatedly admitted his mistake; thus he recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same offense shall be severely punished. 11 The recommendation was approved and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution 12 dated August 22, 2020, viz.: aScITE
RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case to REPRIMAND Atty. Julius Loren C. Santos with a Stern Warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely, after finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules. 13
The Issue
Should respondent be held administratively liable?
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.
For emphasis, Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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. aScITE
As a rule, "a lawyer's language, though forceful and emphatic, must 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 judicial forum." 14
In asseverating that complainant induced his clients to extort money from respondent's clients and that complainant is already lusting for attorney's fees, respondent utterly failed to measure up to the standards and duties imposed by Rule 8.01 and Canon 8 of the CPR. In line with recent jurisprudence, 15 he should be reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense shall be severely punished.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Julius Loren C. Santos GUILTY of violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
The Notice of Resolution No. CBD-2020-08-29 dated August 22, 2020 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors transmitted by letter dated August 4, 2021 of Atty. Avelino V. Sales, Jr., Director for Bar Discipline, together with the records of the case and flash drive file, is NOTED. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2. Id. at 5-25.
3. Id. at 17-18.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 58-61.
6. Id. at 59.
7. Id. at 60 and 117.
8. Id. at 74-75.
9. Id. at 117.
10. Id. at 116-120.
11. Id. at 120.
12. Id. at 114.
13. Id.
14. Velasco v. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021.
15. Dimaculangan v. Jurado, A.C. No. 12359, April 8, 2019.