THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12388. September 7, 2022.]
MARIA THERESA GABUAT, complainant, vs.ATTY. ARISTOTLE T. DOMINGUEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 7, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 12388 (Maria Theresa Gabuat v. Atty. Aristotle T. Dominguez). — Submitted for this Court's resolution is an administrative complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) filed by complainant Maria Theresa Gabuat (Gabuat) against respondent Atty. Aristotle T. Dominguez (Atty. Dominguez) for his display of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. On 23 November 2020, the Court issued a Resolution noting Atty. Dominguez's Manifestation and Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment and to Secure Copy of Video, dated 20 August 2020, and giving him 15 days from securing the video to file the required Comment.
The Facts
From 2017 to 2018, there was ongoing litigation between the Innodata Employees Association (IDEA) and Innodata, Inc. (Innodata) before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) concerning the bid for Innodata's trademark and its corresponding monetary award. 1
Complainant Gabuat is a member of IDEA. 2 Respondent Atty. Dominguez is the legal counsel of INODEES104, the 104 judgment creditors who participated in the bidding for Innodata's trademark. 3
On 18 November 2018, Atty. Dominguez came uninvited to an IDEA meeting and Christmas party held at Malibay Plaza, Pasay City, where Gabuat was present. 4 At the event, there was a heated discussion between Atty. Dominguez and the IDEA officers and members about the issues arising from the bid for Innodata's trademark. 5 Atty. Dominguez referred to Gabuat as "tanga" and "nagtatanga-tangahan," called Joemarie Deles (Deles), IDEA President, derogatory terms such as "bakla,""hipocrito" and "sinungaling," pointed his finger while talking back at others, and spoke in a loud and aggressive manner in the presence of the meeting's attendees. 6
Following the incident, on 24 November 2018, Gabuat filed a complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant on the ground that Atty. Dominguez displayed behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. 7
On 4 February 2019, the Court issued a Resolution requiring Atty. Dominguez to file a Comment within ten days from notice. 8
On 9 May 2019, Atty. Dominguez filed a Motion for Extension and to Secure Copy of Video. 9 On 17 July 2019, the Court issued a Resolution granting Atty. Dominguez's Motion, giving him an additional 15 days after securing a copy of the video within which to file a Comment. 10
On 22 January 2020, the Court issued a Resolution noting Gabuat's updated Manifestation submitting a copy of the video saved in the flash drive as additional proof of the incident subject of her complaint. 11
On 11 March 2020, the Court issued a Resolution requiring Atty. Dominguez to (1) show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for his failure to file a Comment, and (2) comply with the 4 February 2019 Resolution which directed him to file a Comment on the complaint. 12
On 20 August 2020, Atty. Dominguez filed his Manifestation and Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment and to Secure Copy of Video. 13 In an attempt to contextualize the incident, Atty. Dominguez mentions Deles' "fraudulent bid," authorized by Atty. Cezar Maravilla, Jr. (Atty. Maravilla), legal counsel of Innodata, about the acquisition of the Innodata trademark. Moreover, Atty. Dominguez also attached as an Annex a copy of a Motion he filed in the labor case between IDEA and Innodata before the NLRC. 14
On 23 November 2020, the Court issued a Resolution noting Atty. Dominguez's Manifestation and Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment and to Secure Copy of Video. 15 However, to this date, Atty. Dominguez has not complied with the directive to submit a Comment.
The Issue
Did Atty. Dominguez display conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?
The Ruling of the Court
This Court finds that Atty. Dominguez is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, in violation of Canons 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of the same. 16 It is for this reason that members of the legal profession are held to the most exacting standards, both in their professional and personal lives.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent, but also a continuing requirement for one to remain a lawyer in good standing in the legal profession. 17 In Abragan v. Rodriguez, 18 the Court ruled that the CPR establishes the norms of conduct and ethical standards in the legal profession, and that the Court must not shirk from its duty to ensure that all lawyers live up to its provisions. Moreover, in Buenviaje v. Magdamo, 19 it was ruled that any violation of these conditions exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
A review of the record will show that Atty. Dominguez's actions amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, and that he violated several provisions of the CPR.
As captured in the video footage of the incident, as well as in Gabuat's affidavit, it is evident how Atty. Dominguez conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer. Not only did he interrupt a private event he was not invited to, his overall disposition while interacting with the IDEA officers and members was intimidating and aggressive, if not downright insulting and demeaning.
While at the event, Atty. Dominguez raised his voice, spoke in a provocative and condescending tone, and pointed his finger in an aggressive manner while in conversation with the IDEA officers and members, including complainant Gabuat, whom he called "tanga." To add insult to injury, he made disparaging comments against Deles, the IDEA President, such as "hipocrito" and "sinungaling," and referred to him as "bakla," a homophobic slur, a degrading and discriminatory gender insensitive stereotype.
It was inevitable for a conflict to arise, given the contentious topic of the discussion that led to the volatile exchanges between Atty. Dominguez and the IDEA officers and members. However, a lawyer is expected to remain civil and respectful, and to use temperate language in such a way that is in keeping with the dignity of the profession.
Atty. Dominguez's hostile behavior and offensive utterances towards the IDEA officers and members warrant discipline by this Court, as they are in flagrant violation of Canons 7 and 8 of the CPR, which state:
Canon 7: A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01: A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.
Worse, when directed by the Court to show cause as to why he should not be disciplinarily sanctioned, Atty. Dominguez, in his Motion, tried to justify his actions by imputing malice on Atty. Maravilla in calling the bid he authorized Deles to make as "fraudulent." 20 Though a lawyer is expected to represent his client's cause with passion, such must not to be to the point of making malicious and unsupported accusations against opposing counsel. In Nava II v. Artuz, 21 citing Noble III v. Ailes, 22 it was ruled that "the hurling of insulting language against opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession."
Clearly, Atty. Dominguez's remark against opposing counsel Atty. Maravilla in his Motion defies the express mandates of Canons 8 and 19 of the CPR, which state:
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.
Canon 19: A lawyer must represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Furthermore, Atty. Dominguez failed to comply with the directive to submit a Comment despite filing two Motions for Extension for this purpose, which were both granted by the Court. The Court gave Atty. Dominguez several opportunities to secure the video, as well as adequate time to prepare a Comment, for the purpose of refuting the allegations made in the complaint against him. However, considering that two years have passed without the Court receiving his Comment, it can be deduced that there was no intention on his part to submit one at all.
The present case has evaded resolution due to the delay caused by the non-submission of the Comment, to the prejudice of both the complainant and the Court. Indeed, Atty. Dominguez's failure to comply with the directive to file a Comment, despite deliberately asking for and being granted multiple extensions, is inexcusable and must be penalized. This demonstrates wanton disregard of the Court's authority, in blatant contravention of Canons 1, 10, 11, and 12 of the CPR, which state that:
Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 10: A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.03: A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Canon 11: A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Canon 12: A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.03: A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04: A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse Court processes.
For the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed on an erring lawyer, previous infractions must also be taken into consideration. In Tabujara v. Aristotle T. Dominguez, 23 Atty. Dominguez was previously admonished by this Court "to be more careful in his dealings in the future and avoid any suspicion of impropriety on his part." 24
To conclude, the Court is convinced that Atty. Dominguez displayed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and violated several provisions of the CPR when he used derogatory and abusive language and behaved in a threatening manner towards the IDEA officers and members at the event where he arrived uninvited. This is further aggravated by his non-compliance with the directive to file a Comment despite asking for and being granted two Motions for Extension, as well as his malicious imputation of fraud on opposing counsel. It must also be noted that Atty. Dominguez had already been previously admonished by this Court, and that this is the second administrative charge filed against him.
Thus, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is an appropriate sanction to be meted out on Atty. Dominguez for his display of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and for his multiple violations of the CPR, taking into account the aggravating circumstance of his previous conviction and his deliberate securing of extensions, without, however, making the required submissions in defiance of the authority of the Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Aristotle T. Dominguez GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Respondent is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable it to determine when his suspension from the practice of law shall take effect.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to: (1) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney; (2) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and (3) the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 28-53.
2. Id. at 1.
3. Id. at 38.
4. Supra note 2.
5. Id. at 11.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 4.
9. Id. at pp. 6-7.
10. Id. at 10.
11. Id. at 13.
12. Id. at 18.
13. Id. at pp. 21-25.
14. Supra note 1.
15. Id. at 26.
16. Alcantara, et al v. De Vera, A.C. No. 5859, 25 November 2010, 635 SCRA 674, 679.
17. Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, 28 January 1998, 258 SCRA 93, 100.
18. A.C. No. 4346, 3 April 2002, 380 SCRA 93, 101.
19. A.C. No. 11616, 23 August 2017, 837 SCRA 400, 408.
20. Supra note 13, at 23.
21. A.C. No. 7253, 18 February 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11920>.
22. A.C. No. 10628, 1 July 2015, 761 SCRA 1, 8.
23. A.C. No. 8963, 6 June 2016 (Notice).
24. Id.