Martin v. Ala

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10556. June 30, 2021.]

DENIS GUY MARTIN, complainant,vs. ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10556 (DENIS GUY MARTIN, complainant, v. ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, respondent). — This is an administrative case for disbarment stemming from a Complaint 1 filed by Denis Guy Martin (complainant) against Atty. Leticia E. Ala (respondent) for violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HTcADC

Antecedents

Complainant is the estranged husband of respondent's sister, Rebecca Ala Martin (Rebecca). Complainant claims that while he was still living with Rebecca, he engaged respondent's services as counsel in his personal and business affairs. In particular, respondent allegedly assisted complainant in the filing of a counter-affidavit and other documents when the latter was a respondent in a criminal complaint filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan; prepared a demand letter concerning bouncing checks which were issued to complainant; and represented complainant's company, ADC Construction, Inc., in a case that was filed against it.

When complainant's marriage with Rebecca broke down, however, respondent served as her sister's counsel in the filing of cases against complainant, to wit: (a) Petition 2 for the issuance of a Protection Order under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262; and (b) Complaint-Affidavit 3 for violation of R.A. No. 9262 where respondent was listed as both witness and counsel 4 of Rebecca. The records show that respondent represented Rebecca not only in the initial filing of these cases but also in all subsequent proceedings with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Court of Appeals (CA).

Complainant asserts that in acting as counsel for Rebecca, respondent represented conflicting interests which warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions against her.

Professing innocence, respondent in her Verified Answer 5 denied ever having complainant as a client. She pointed out, inter alia, complainant's failure to produce the documents that she purportedly prepared as his alleged counsel.

Complainant's only connection with her law practice, respondent asserted, only occurred when her law firm, Cruz Durian Alday and Cruz Matters, assisted the Drilling and Blasting Management Group (DBMG) in some legal matters for free. It was Rebecca who served as President of DBMG and complainant was a "mere free-loader" 6 in the said company. Thus, no client-attorney relationship ever existed between complainant and respondent.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Report and

In his Report and Recommendation 7 dated August 7, 2008, Commissioner Edmund T. Espina (Commissioner Espina) found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. In addition, Commissioner Espina declared respondent at fault for tolerating the filing of malicious and baseless suits against complainant, as well as for using tactless, abusive and offensive language in her pleadings. He highlighted the following passages m respondent's Verified Memorandum 8 alone:

3.3.c Herein Complainant's Counsel should be cited for gross ignorance of the law. It is getting very obvious that herein Complainant's counsel in this present case is very careless — filing a disbarment case against another lawyer when he himself is GROSSLY IGNORANT of the law.

3.3.d It appears that said counsel has just been requested by some other diabolic and desperate counsel of herein Complainant who has SUCCE(S]SIVELY LOST in all of herein Complainant's cases elsewhere despite being paid millions of pesos in professional fees.

It appears that some diabolical lawyers retained by herein Complainant will not stop filing just about any case for money, unmindful that herein Complainant does NOT even give financial support to his sons.

xxx xxx xxx

4.3 Smarting from his legal loss in France, herein Complainant changed counsels and engaged an Atty. VICENTE BALISADO, who bandied about his having been the counsel for the RAPE case of a disgraced and convicted lawmaker.

xxx xxx xxx

4.4 x x x Despite the fact that Atty. Balisado succeeded in harnessing his much-vaunted influence at the Department of Justice (where he formerly came from) and getting a Resolution from the Secretary of Justices [sic] directing the Prosecution Service of Parañaque "to withdraw the Information filed against herein Complainant with RTC-Branch 260 of Parañaque City" x x x.

x x x Atty. Balisado again flexed his muscle by having no less than State Prosecutor AMOR ROBLES file the Motion to Withdraw Information at RTC-Branch 260 of Parañaque, to which the City Prosecutor of Parañaque meekly signed his conformity to.

xxx xxx xxx

When the Court of Appeals directed that a government doctor examine Jean Marc, Atty. Balisado (also a former employee at the Court of Appeals) again flexed his muscles at the Court of Appeals by distorting the proceedings thereat, got a DR. ROMMEL PAPA of the NBI to examine the boy JUST A DAY BEFORE THE SECOND HEARING AT THE COURT OF APPEALS, succeeded in taking the boy out of the Serenity House in Tagaytay City and transferred the boy to ROADS and BRIDGES Center in Pasig City, a private facility which said Dr. Papa established and co-own [sic]. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

What these ambulance-chasing lawyers abetting the oppressive character of this alien of a Complainant do not seem to realize is that by harassing another lawyer carelessly, they are exposing themselves to counter-charges.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.9

Commissioner Espina found that respondent, in making such assertions which were couched in an offensive manner, practically "betrayed her very own self." 10 Accordingly, Commissioner Espina recommended the following administrative sanctions against respondent:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is recommended that respondent Atty. Leticia E. Ala be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. 11

On September 20, 2008, the Board of Governors of the IBP rendered Resolution No. XVIII-2008-477 adopting and approving the findings of Commissioner Espina, but with modification as to the recommended penalty. Thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent's violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for using abusive and offensive language in her pleadings, Atty. Let[i]cia E. Ala is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) months. 12 aScITE

On January 6, 2009, respondent filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration. 13 Likewise, on even date, respondent wrote a letter 14 to the IBP Board of Governors, requesting that Commissioner Espina be investigated for impropriety. Respondent alleged that Commissioner Espina (a) conferred with one Atty. Rex Fernandez whom she filed an administrative case against; (b) used anti-women statements in his Report and Recommendation; and (c) suppressed her valid defense. 15

On March 22, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-150 16 denying respondent's Verified Motion for Reconsideration.

On August 15, 2014, respondent filed with the IBP Board of Governors a Verified Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration 17 which reiterated her accusations of misconduct on the part of Commissioner Espina. The same was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action. 18

In a Report and Recommendation 19 dated May 15, 2015, the OBC found that, indeed, respondent was guilty of representing conflicting interests and using intemperate and abusive language. Likewise, respondent's allegations against Commissioner Espina were unsubstantiated. Thus, the OBC recommended the following sanction:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Leticia E. Ala be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year for violations of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warned that a repetition of the same or similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely. 20

The Ruling of the Court

Lawyers are officers of the court. They are called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system to protect and uphold truth and the rule of law. 21 Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. 22 The practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically, and morally. Members of the Bar are expected to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public. 23

Thus, in Cordon v. Balicanta, 24 We declared:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because "vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all." (Citations omitted)

In the case at bar, the relevant provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

Canon 8 — x x x

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

Canon 15 — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The Court partly adopts the findings of the OBC insofar as it finds respondent guilty of violating Rule 8.01. Thus, a departure from the recommended penalty is necessary.

Respondent is guilty of using abusive,

The adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. 25 Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should 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 the judicial forum. 26 Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. 27 In this regard, all lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. 28

While the Court understands the deeply personal feelings and entanglements involved in the instant case with respondent being administratively charged by her sister's estranged husband, respondent ought to be reminded that the language she has employed is highly unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Worse, respondent in advocating for her innocence has attributed — without any evidence serious doubts and imputed malice on our legal institutions such as the DOJ, the CA, and the IBP.

Surely, the "sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer" 29 should have implored respondent not to "spill over the walls of decency or propriety" 30 in defending herself. That she chose to diminish the level of discourse to mere gossip-mongering is most unfortunate. Disciplinary action against respondent is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court as the "guardian of the legal profession." 31

Respondent is not guilty of representing

The test to determine the existence of a conflict of interest involving a lawyer and opposing clients was explained in Capinpin, Jr. v. Cesa, Jr., 32 to wit:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. x x x. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double[-]dealing in the performance thereof. (Citations omitted)

The raison d'etre for the rule against the representation of conflicting interests was elucidated by this Court in Pacana, Jr. v.Pascual-Lopez, 33 thus:

This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy, good taste and, more importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including its weak and strong points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given to him to take advantage of his client; for if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. It is for these reasons that we have described the attorney-client relationship as one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. (Citations omitted) HEITAD

In a similar case, Hierro v. Nava II34(Hierro), Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II (Atty. Nava) was found guilty of representing conflicting interests when he represented his former client's wife in the filing of a Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) case against the said former client. The Court discussed:

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Nava became the retained counsel of Hierro in the latter's cases and also as counsel for Annalyn in the petition for the issuance of a TPO against Hierro. It must be highlighted that the petition for the issuance of a TPO contains reference to the criminal cases that were handled by Atty. Nava to demonstrate Hierro's propensity for violence in order to show supposed maltreatment of Hierro to Annalyn, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

14. [Hierro's] history of violence can be gleaned from the following criminal cases he is presently facing in court which were filed by persons, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Nava was the lawyer of Hierro in seven of the eight aforementioned cases. As defense counsel for Hierro, Atty. Nava advocates the innocence of his client in these cases. However, in citing these as part of the petition for the issuance of a TPO, in effect, he is implying that there is merit in these cases which is diametrically opposed to his position as defense counsel of Hierro. This clearly violates the rule against conflict of interest.

By enumerating the cases where he represented his former client as counsel, Atty. Nava in effect used the privileged information that he obtained against him. This is tantamount to betraying his former client's trust.

However, Hierro finds no application in the present case. There is no showing that respondent, in representing her sister Rebecca in filing VAWC cases against complainant, had used any confidential information that she obtained from complainant against him.

In fact, the records do not even show the extent of the confidential information that complainant purportedly conveyed to respondent. True, respondent admitted that she helped complainant in the preparation of affidavits and other documents for the latter's personal cases. However, there is no evidence of any correlation between the said cases and the VAWC cases that respondent's sister filed against complainant. Not a single copy of the documents that respondent allegedly prepared for complainant was adduced by the latter. Neither did respondent make any reference to any of these documents in her pleadings in her sister's VAWC cases.

In the absence of any connection between complainant's personal cases and his wife's VAWC cases, the Court simply cannot sanction respondent for representing conflicting interests. There is no evidence that respondent engaged in double-dealing when she represented her sister in cases filed against respondent.

It bears stressing that the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence. 35 As far as violation of Rule 8.01 is concerned, complainant failed in this regard.

The penalty to be imposed on

The penalty to be meted to an erring lawyer rests on sound judicial discretion. 36 In the cases of Noble III v. Ailes, 37 The Lawfirm ofChavez Miranda Aseoche v. Lazaro, 38 and, more recently, Parks v. Misa, Jr., 39 the Court admonished lawyers for employing abusive, offensive and intemperate language in their pleadings as well as in the course of their dealings with their colleagues in the legal profession.

The Court applies the same penalty to respondent, with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Leticia E. Ala GUILTY of violating Canon 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with her professional colleagues and to refrain from using language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper in her pleadings. Atty. Ala is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be served on the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance and be attached to Atty. Ala's personal record as attorney.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 217-236.

2.Id. at 423-427.

3.Id. at 429-433.

4.Id. at 428.

5.Id. at 485-502.

6.Id. at 486.

7.Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 721-738.

8.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 58-91.

9.Id. at 76-88.

10.Rollo (Vol. II), p. 737.

11.Id. at 738.

12.Id. at 720.

13.Id. at 605-634.

14.Id. at 798-801. Although the letter was dated January 6, 2008, the records show that it was actually filed on January 6, 2009.

15.Id. at 799-800.

16.Id. at 718-719.

17.Id. at 739-747.

18.Id. at 838.

19.Id. at 894-913.

20.Id.

21.Genato v. Mallari, A.C. No. 12486, October 15, 2019.

22.Alpajora v. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93, 107 (2018).

23.Telles v. Dancel, A.C. No. 5279, September 8, 2020.

24. 439 Phil. 95, 115-116 (2002).

25.Saberon v. Larong, 574 Phil. 510, 516 (2008).

26.Noble III v. Ailes, 762 Phil. 296, 301 (2015).

27.Gimeno v. Zaide, 759 Phil. 10, 23 (2015).

28.Nuesca v. Villagarcia, 792 Phil. 535, 540 (2016).

29.Ng v. Alar, 537 Phil. 622, 630 (2006).

30.Zamora v. Mahinay, A.C. No. 12622, February 10, 2020.

31.Yuzon v. Agleron, 824 Phil. 321, 328 (2018).

32. 813 Phil. 1, 8 (2017) quoting from Hornilla v. Salunat, 453 Phil. 108, 111-112 (2003).

33. 611 Phil. 409, 409-410 (2009).

34. A.C. No. 9459, January 7, 2020.

35.Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018.

36.Gimena v. Vijiga, 821 Phil. 185, 193 (2017).

37.Supra note 26.

38. 794 Phil. 308 (2016).

39. A.C. No. 11639, February 5, 2020.