FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11814. April 23, 2018.]
JOSEL JAY M. NUYDA, JR., petitioner,vs. ATTY. NUEVA NUYDA JOSON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows: AIDSTE
"A.C. No. 11814 (Josel Jay M. Nuyda, Jr. v. Atty. Nueva Nuyda Joson).
These are seven disbarment cases filed against respondent Atty. Nueva Nuyda Joson, 1 involving a portion of the 4,066 square-meter Lot 5879-A located in Barangay 5, Camalig, Albay.
The Facts
Complainant Josel Jay M. Nuyda, Jr., claims that his and respondent's families inherited the untitled Lot 5879-A from their predecessors since respondent is the paternal first cousin of complainant's father. 2 Respondent denies this, asserting that she and her nine siblings inherited the Lot from their father, Faustino Nuyda (Faustino), in whose name the land is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-122512 of the Registry of Deeds (RD) for the Province of Albay. Respondent also asserts that the Lot has been declared for tax purposes, and payments for real property taxes had been made, in their parents' names. 3
Respondent further avers that out of compassion, Faustino had allowed his brother (and complainant's grandfather) Elias Nuyda (Elias) and his family to occupy a house on a portion of Lot 5879-A free of rent, and even after her parents' death, she and her siblings allowed them to stay on the property rent-free with the agreement that Elias' family would vacate it when he passes away. Respondent adds that after Elias died in 2008, she and her siblings permitted complainant and his aunts Alegria (Alegria) and Zorayda (Zorayda) Nuyda to stay but only until the end of January 2009 as they intended to build their retirement homes on the Lot. When respondent's sister, Jama Kuenzle (Jama) asked complainant and his aunts to vacate the property in 2009, they insisted on being paid "displacement fees." 4
In 2010, Jama wrote to Alegria and Zorayda demanding that they vacate the premises. The latter's counsel wrote back to Jama asking for copies of documents evidencing title to the land. 5
I. CBD No. 12-3588 (For: Dishonesty, Deceit, Malpractice of Profession, Misconduct, Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer)
Complainant claimed that in the evening of February 2, 2012, respondent, together with her siblings, Jama, Susan Nuyda-Garcia (Susan), Rejaldia Nuyda-Santos and Dennis Nuyda went to complainant's house and was entertained by Alegria. Minutes later, complainant overheard the loud voice of an angry woman saying (as translated from their dialect): "We are just here, why did you and your party omit to talk with us?! . . . Then you and your party hired a lawyer! . . . We come here to get inheritance for us! . . . Inheritance that we have from our parents, then after all, you and your party will just usurp it?!"6
In their respective affidavits, Zorayda and complainant's housemaid, Filomina Nimo, identified the woman to be respondent. They added that respondent also told Alegria that she would slap the land title in their lawyer's face. 7
Because of the incident, complainant requested the assistance of police who took complainant's statement. Later, counsel for complainant and his aunts wrote to Jama asking her to refrain from communicating with Alegria and her party except through counsel to keep the peace. 8
Summons was subsequently served on Alegria to appear before the Barangay Lupon for an ejectment case. 9 Complainant answered the summons, assailing respondent's personality to bring the issue before the Lupon because she supposedly was not a resident of the barangay and had not shown valid title to the subject land. 10 Complainant also requested the Barangay Chairman to take action on the columbarium constructed within their immediate vicinity which allegedly appeared to be the business plan of respondent's party. 11 AaCTcI
At the August 6, 2012 mediation before the Barangay Lupon, respondent appeared but Alegria did not. Complainant alleged that later that day, a utility boy cut down trees in his yard at Susan's directive because they "emitted garbage leaves in their premises." Complainant further narrated that he proceeded to call the police after a short altercation with Susan who then uttered scandalous and defamatory words, seconded by her brother, Ramon Nuyda (Ramon), causing a public scandal. Complainant alleged that respondent, who was then present, did nothing to stop Susan, the utility boy or Ramon. Complainant also alleged that even after the police arrived, Ramon tried to harm him and was stopped only by a policeman, then proceeded to hurl insulting and defamatory words against him. Complainant decried respondent's failure to stop her sibling's acts and for instead laughing beside Susan. 12
The following day, a new summons was served by the Barangay Lupon on complainant, Alegria and Zorayda. 13 Complainant and his aunts moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds complainant opposed the summons initially served on Alegria. 14 After they failed to appear at the scheduled mediation before the Lupon, respondent and her siblings filed an Unlawful Detainer case against them. 15
Complainant sought respondent's disbarment for allegedly:
(a) Using intemperate words against Alegria on February 2, 2012;
(b) Misleading Alegria with a purported TCT when the land is untitled;
(c) Not preventing Susan and Ramon from cutting down complainant's trees and from mistreating complainant on August 2, 2012;
(d) Misusing the Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings because she was not an actual resident of the barangay and she was lawyering for her siblings but disguised herself as a complainant, knowing the prohibition against lawyers appearing before the Lupon;
(e) Failing to dissuade Jama from signing the demand letter without clear basis of ownership of the land;
(f) Attacking the professional standing of their counsel when he asked for proof of ownership from Jama; and
(g) Not preventing the illegal exhumation of the skeletal remains of her parents and the construction of a columbarium on Lot 5879-A without a building permit. 16
Respondent denied the charges. She explained that on February 2, 2012, she and some of her siblings went to the house which her family had allowed complainant and his aunts to occupy, but it was complainant who harassed them against entering the house. Nonetheless, they extended kindness and understanding to him as he was depressed after failing the Bar Exam and being disqualified from pursuing his dream to be a lawyer given the new Bar Flunk Rule. Respondent averred that Alegria, in fact, welcomed them despite the hysterics of complainant who later left because no one was paying attention to him. The meeting, according to respondent, ended surprisingly well, with Alegria promising to vacate the property subject to the payment of a displacement fee which they may finalize during a barangay conciliation. She further averred that the police did arrive but after she and her siblings had retired to their ancestral home, and the policemen never met with them or asked them any questions. Susan and Ramon executed a joint affidavit attesting to these events. 17
Respondent further explained that she sought the Barangay's mediation so that the verbal agreement they had with Alegria could be formally put into writing. She claimed to have always been a resident of Camalig, Albay as her animus revertendi never left her and the ejectment case was purposely filed so she and her siblings could build their retirement homes on the land they inherited. She asserted material interest in the property as one of Faustino's compulsory heirs and denied disguising as a complainant before the Barangay Lupon. 18 EcTCAD
Respondent averred that she was not in charge of the construction of the small family columbarium on the property and that she had no knowledge of its design and permits. She, however, supported the idea of constructing the columbarium as the local cemetery is flooded during rainy months. 19
Finally, respondent repudiated the August 6, 2012 incident as alleged by complainant. She claimed that she and her siblings, Susan and Ramon, were quietly cleaning the premises of their ancestral home when complainant, upon seeing them, went hysterical and began shouting invectives at them. They resolved not to engage him but he persisted, prompting Susan to tell him in a stern voice that if he could not respect their blood relations, he should at least respect her and respondent as women who were as old as his mother. Complainant was undeterred and instigated them to violently react when he said that their parents had no right to be buried in the property and should just be left at the cemetery to drown, but they did not take the bait. Respondent admitted laughing at the surreal and ironic situation their family was thrust into all because they took pity on Elias and his family. Susan and Ramon submitted a joint affidavit to corroborate respondent's averments. 20
II. CBD Case No. 12-3608 (For: Falsehood, Corrupt Appearance to Defame and Defraud, Use of Falsified Documents and Violation of Lawyer's Oath)
Complainant alleged that the land title which respondent handed to the Barangay and showed to Alegria was fake. In support of this claim, complainant cited the Certification issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Albay (RD Certification) which in part stated that it had no available record of Lot No. 5879. 21
To refute complainant's accusation, respondent submitted a copy of TCT No. T-122512 certified by the Register of Deeds of Albay (RD), as well as the Official Receipt for the payment of the RD's verification fees and the certified copy. 22 Respondent also pointed out that complainant had not established his right or title to the property, and his complaint constituted a collateral attack on the indefeasibility of TCT No. T-122512. 23
Respondent averred that she had retired from 40 years of government service without her integrity as lawyer and government employee having been questioned. She further averred that she and her siblings had been asking complainant and his family to vacate the property since 2009 when she was still with the National Police Commission, but she never used her office to evict them. 24
Respondent further pointed out that the subject lot is not Lot 5879 but Lot 5879-A, and an inquiry with the Land Registration Authority, as the RD's Certification suggested, would have confirmed that Lot 5879 had been subdivided into Lots 5879-A and 5879-B. 25
III. CBD Case No. 12-3624 (For: Dishonesty, Falsehood, Violation of Lawyer's Oath, Use of Disrespectful, Derogatory and Intemperate Words and Invasion of Privacy)
Complainant alleged that respondent used "impertinent, unnecessary, disrespectful, scandalous, indecent, sarcastic, insulting and derogatory" words in her Answer to his first disbarment complaint. Complainant cited respondent's allegations:
(a) that he was a "liar" because contrary to his claim, there was no land dispute between their families because their dispute was in the nature of ejectment and ownership of the land belonged to her family based on TCT No. T-122512;
(b) that he is an "abusive squatter";
(c) that her family would have paid complainant and his aunts the "displacement fees" Alegria asked for as an "overextended compassionate reaction to plain extortion";
(d) that she and her siblings extended kindness and understanding to him even when he had harassed them because he was suffering from depression since he failed the Bar Exam and was already disqualified from pursuing his dream on account of the new Bar Flunk Rule;
(e) that he had been in hysterics when she and her siblings meant to enter the house he was occupying;
(f) he had the propensity for hysterics and filing baseless cases; and
(g) that he had misunderstood the Katarungang Pambarangay law by submitting a motion to dismiss before the Lupon. 26 HSAcaE
Respondent countered that she merely stated the truth in her Answer and that she saw it as a moral obligation to expose complainant's unscrupulous nature, as shown by the numerous "whimsical cases" he had filed against Susan and Ramon (for grave oral defamation, grave scandal and simple slander) which had been dismissed at the first instance, and the cases he filed against government officials, including the Barangay chairman, who had reminded him against using government agencies to institute endless litigation. She stressed that the Complaint was clearly meant to harass her, and as a member of the Bar in good standing for 40 years, she asked the IBP to protect her against complainant's malicious accusations. 27
Complainant dismissed respondent's Answer as false and misleading. He clarified that the administrative cases he filed against the government officials were for breach of public duty. 28
IV. CBD Case No. 12-3666 (For: Dishonesty, Falsehood, Violation of Lawyer's Oath, Use of Disrespectful, Derogatory and Intemperate Words, Invasion of Privacy and Unprofessional Conduct)
Complainant accused respondent of making "irrelevant, impertinent, unnecessary, farfetch [sic], disrespectful, scandalous, indecent, sarcastic, false, insulting and derogatory remarks" when she stated in her Answer to the second disbarment complaint:
(a) that complainant is "a liar and an abusive squatter";
(b) that she and her siblings extended kindness and understanding to him even when he had harassed them from entering their house, because he was depressed since he failed the Bar Exam and was already disqualified from pursuing his dream on account of the new Bar Flunk Rule;
(c) that he had been in hysterics when she and her siblings meant to enter the house he was occupying;
(d) that respondent had advised him and his aunts to seek counsel from other lawyers to confirm Faustino's title to the property so they would be enlightened or at least "their greed would be managed to non-fraudulent levels";
(e) that he filed a prohibited motion to dismiss before the Barangay Lupon to parry any amicable settlement;
(f) that his argument that respondent's family used TCT No. 122512 to show a better right to the property was "preposterous and plain ignorant" as there was no better right to speak of since the land belongs solely to respondents and her siblings as Faustino's heirs;
(g) that the complaint is a collateral attack on the indefeasibility of TCT No. 122512;
(h) that complainant brought his grievance to the IBP with "filthy hands" as he misrepresented himself to be an owner of the property without proof of his right or title thereto and despite knowledge of respondent's family's ownership thereof; and
(i) that respondent had not appreciated the new Bar Flunk Rule until complainant "unleashed his fraudulent nature" and that it was a "blessing" that complainant could never become a lawyer since he is a "dangerous and unscrupulous man who will distort and circumvent the law in order to further his greed and interests and at the expense of others." 29
Complainant pointed out that the depression he was allegedly experiencing was a private and confidential medical matter which respondent had no business mentioning as it could only be testified to by an expert upon a patient's consent. He also argued that his motion to dismiss before the barangay was not a prohibited pleading. 30
Respondent reiterated the defenses in her Answer to the third disbarment complaint, asserting in the main that she merely stated the truth. 31
In his Reply, complainant indicated that he had sued respondent for Libel for her alleged defamatory statements in the first and second disbarment cases. 32
V. CBD Case No. 14-4100 (For: Falsehood and Violation of Lawyer's Oath)
Complainant accused respondent of maliciously filing against him a case for Violation of the Anti-Graft Law and Falsification before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon and nine counts of Perjury before the City Prosecution Office of Legazpi, Albay. 33 HESIcT
Respondent countered that the cases she filed were based on evidence. She explained that she filed the case before the Ombudsman against complainant and two RD employees for the issuance and use of the RD Certification that Lot 5879 did not appear in the RD's records when the RD was able to issue a certified copy of TCT No. T-122512 over Lot 5879-A which was derived from Lot 5879. She also explained that the Perjury cases were filed against complainant for falsely claiming under oath that TCT No. T-122512 was fake, and their dismissal, premised on complainant's supposed ignorance, was pending appeal before the Department of Justice. She asserted that justice demands that persons should have resort to courts for redress and vindication of their rights. 34
VI. CBD Case No. 14-4118 (For: Falsehood and Violation of Lawyer's Oath)
Complainant accused respondent of falsely and maliciously charging him with the crime of Libel for stating in his Answer to respondent's Unlawful Detainer Complaint that Faustino fraudulently transferred Lot 5879 solely in his name, in derogation of the rights of his brothers Elias and Francisco. Complainant also accused respondent of using altered evidence in the Unlawful Detainer case when she submitted a photocopy of TCT No. T-122512 that suppressed the serial number of said judicial form and which indicated the Judicial Form number to be No. 109 instead of No. 109-D. 35
Respondent countered that complainant had accused her father of fraud without an iota of evidence and that the Libel case was to defend her father's name from complainant's effort to blacken his memory. She also denied using an altered copy of TCT No. T-122512 which had been issued by the RD. 36
VII. CBD Case No. 14-4194 (For: Violation of Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Rule 10.01 to 10.02, Canon 10, Rule 11.03 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Falsehood, Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Unprofessional Conduct)
The seventh disbarment complaint relates to the Rejoinder filed by respondent in the criminal cases for Falsification of Public Documents and Use of Falsified Public Document which complainant filed against her, and to respondent's Reply to complainant's Counter-Affidavit in the Libel case. 37
Complainant accused respondent of making "false arguments" and "unnecessary barbarous remarks" 38 when she indicated in said Rejoinder:
(a) that he was ignorant of the law when he filed a prohibited Motion to Dismiss before the Barangay, when he thought that a lawyer who was herself a party could not appear at barangay conciliation, and when he misunderstood the Local Government Code;
(b) that he had an affinity and propensity to weave falsity;
(c) that he should not judge the other illegal occupants of the Lot, who were prevailed upon through barangay conciliation, for understanding the law much better than he did and for vacating the Lot without resort to ungrateful dramatics, abuse of government agencies and harassment cases; and
(d) that said other occupants vacated the property because they possibly knew that an ignorant is never exempted from complying with the law unless he is also insane or an imbecile. 39
Complainant further accused respondent of making "venomous and barbaric remarks to insult and ridicule" him when she stated in her Reply in the Libel case: (a) that he maliciously manipulated his alleged ignorance when he claimed no malicious inclination to defame respondent; (b) that his malicious misunderstanding of the law would have been exempting had he pleaded insanity or imbecility instead of ignorance; and (c) that he had feigned ignorance despite having brandished his credentials as a law graduate and a veteran of many law reviews and seminars. 40
In her defense, respondent asserted that the questioned remarks in her Rejoinder were in response to the misrepresentations in complainant's Reply. She also pointed out that the complaint for Falsification and Use of Falsified Public Document had in fact been dismissed by the City Prosecutor and complainant's motion for reconsideration had been denied. She further argued that there was nothing venomous in her statements in the Libel case because complainant's ignorance had been the City Prosecutor's reason for dismissing the Perjury cases and complainant had not questioned his resolution only because it had benefitted him. She denied using intemperate language in her pleadings and claimed to have even exercised restraint despite the 42 harassment cases filed by complainant against her and her family. 41 caITAC
The Commission on Bar Discipline's
Through Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor, the Commission found that respondent did not transgress the Code of Professional Responsibility, her Lawyer's Oath or any law, and recommended the dismissal of all seven disbarment cases for lack of merit. 42
The Investigating Commissioner noted that the copy of TCT No. T-122512 submitted by respondent is a certified true copy issued by the RD of Albay. He did not consider respondent's acts as constituting unprofessional conduct and found them to be in accordance with law and legal ethics. He dismissed the affidavits of Zorayda and Filomina as self-serving and biased given their personal interest in the land. He also noted complainant's propensity for filing harassment cases as evidenced by the several baseless complaints he filed against respondent and her family, which had been dismissed, and by the cases he filed against government officials who did not agree with him. He stressed that mere allegations of wrongdoing would not suffice and absent clear evidence to sustain the charges against respondent, the disbarment complaints must be dismissed. 43
The IBP Board of Governors'
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the cases against Respondent is [sic] hereby DISMISSED. 44
The IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XXII-2017-810
RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration there being no reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors and to AFFIRM the DISMISSAL of the complaint. 45
The Court's Ruling
We affirm the Board of Governors' Resolution No. XX1-2015-173 and Resolution No. XXII-2017-810 and dismiss all seven disbarment complaints.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. 46 By law, a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proven, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 47
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary evidence. Under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in determining whether preponderance of evidence exists, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, and the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. 48
In this case, complainant failed to discharge his burden of proof.
The February 2, 2012 incident as alleged by complainant was categorically denied under oath by respondent and her siblings who asserted that contrary to complainant's allegation of verbal assault on Alegria, the latter in fact welcomed them and even promised to vacate the property. The affidavits of Zorayda and Filomina are hardly free from bias given the former's evident interest in the property and the latter's relationship to complainant's family as a longtime kasambahay. The police and barangay blotters respondent adverted to consist of statements allegedly made by complainant and Alegria and are, thus, equally biased and self-serving. It cannot, therefore, be said that complainant's evidence on the subject incident is superior to that of respondent. At best, complainant's evidence is in equipoise to respondent's. It has been held that "[w]hen the evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and the petition/complaint must thus be denied." 49 ICHDca
The August 6, 2012 incident as alleged by complainant was likewise repudiated under oath by respondent and her siblings who averred that they were simply cleaning the premises of their ancestral home and it was in fact complainant who hurled invectives at them and insulted their deceased father. Despite alleging that the incident had unfolded in public and brought onlookers to their property, complainant's version of the events was uncorroborated by any disinterested witness. Furthermore, in faulting respondent for allegedly not stopping her siblings from cutting down the trees on his property or from mistreating him, and additionally, for not stopping the exhumation of her parents' remains and the construction of a columbarium without a permit, complainant would unjustifiably have respondent become responsible for the actions of others who are not under her charge. It should also be noted that respondent had declared under oath that she was not in charge of the construction of the columbarium and that all necessary requirements for the construction have been obtained. Records show as well that her sister, Susan, and their utility boy had been acquitted of the crime of Malicious Mischief which complainant charged them with for allegedly cutting down his trees.
Complainant's assertion that respondent should have advised her sister Jama against serving her demand letter without proof of ownership cannot hold water. It is speculative as there is no proof that Jama sought respondent's counsel, and even if she did, the TCT submitted by respondent ostensibly showed ownership of the land by their father and predecessor-in-interest.
Complainant's assertion that respondent misused the Katarungang Pambarangay law lacks merit. The rule that lawyers cannot appear in barangay conciliations does not apply when the lawyer himself/herself is the party to the case. 50 Contrary to complainant's claim, respondent did not disguise herself as a complainant before the barangay. As the barangay blotter showed, she filed her complaint as heir to/owner of her father's property and as the representative of her co-heirs/co-owners. Complainant himself acknowledged that respondent had material interest in the property. Furthermore, invocation of the Lupon's jurisdiction by a party who is not an actual resident of the barangay does not ipso facto indicate misuse of the Katarungang Pambarangay law. Complainant has not shown that respondent maliciously resorted to barangay conciliation to cause undue injury to him and his aunts. Respondent averred that she brought the case to the Barangay so that her agreement with Alegria could be formally documented. She also averred that Alegria had agreed to finalize the matter of compensation/displacement fee during a barangay conciliation. It has been held that an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. 51
No substantial evidence has been presented by complainant to show the alleged falsity or alteration of TCT No. T-122512. Respondent submitted to the Investigating Commissioner a copy of TCT No. T-122512 that was certified by the RD of Albay. The TCT shows that the registered owner of Lot 5879-A is Faustino, the father and predecessor-in-interest of respondent and her siblings, thus, refuting complainant's allegation that respondent misled Alegria in claiming ownership of the land.
Complainant has not substantially established that respondent maliciously filed the cases for Violation of the Anti-Graft Law, Perjury and Libel against him. Respondent had explained that the Anti-Graft case was based on the RD Certification which she asserted to be false and belied by the very certified TCT issued by the RD; that the Perjury cases sought to hold complainant responsible for falsely claiming that the TCT was fake when it corresponded to the RD's copy; and the Libel case was to vindicate Faustino's memory which complainant supposedly blackened by accusing her father of fraud. Persons indeed should have recourse to courts to redress their grievances and those of respondent do not appear to have been based on pure whim. It also bears noting that complainant himself has initiated 42 cases against respondent and her family. Records show that save for three which have not been resolved, the cases he filed against respondent had been dismissed at the first instance. He claimed that these cases were filed for truth and justice to prevail but would deny the same recourse to respondent simply because it was directed against him. This lopsided view cannot be accepted.
In Belyn v. People, 52 We held:
A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the author has acted in bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the witness in reply to questions propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive to the questions propounded to said witnesses. 53
Explaining the reason for this privilege, this Court declared: TCAScE
The reason for the rule that pleadings in judicial proceedings are considered privileged is not only because said pleadings have become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize, but also to the undeniable fact said pleadings are presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in nature, appropriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts for proper administration of justice and, therefore, of general public concern. Moreover, pleadings are presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they can be supported by evidence in good faith, the contents of which would be under scrutiny of courts and, therefore, subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal statements contained therein. 54
Said doctrine rests upon public policy which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, enabling lawyers and witnesses to speak their minds freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages. 55
Belyn further instructs:
The absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry. Sarcastic, pungent and harsh allegations in a pleading although tending to detract from the dignity that should characterize proceedings in courts of justice, are absolutely privileged, if relevant to the issues. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make the alleged defamatory matter privileged, the courts are inclined to be liberal. The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and impropriety. In order that a matter alleged in the pleading may be privileged, it need not, in any case, be material to the issue presented by the pleadings; however, it must be legitimately related thereto or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial. What is relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words are not be scrutinized with microscopic intensity, as it would defeat the protection which the law throws over privileged communication. 56
Applying the foregoing test of relevancy or pertinency, the questioned remarks made by respondent in her submissions to the IBP constitute privileged communication. They consist of direct refutations of complainant's accusations and descriptions of events, conduct and disposition, as perceived by respondent, in relation to the acts complained of.
The doctrine finds special application to respondent who, in pleading before the IBP and the Court, is personally defending her reputation and her continued membership in the bar and is, thus, expected to argue with utmost zeal and fervor. It must be noted that complainant himself had no shortage of unsavory remarks against respondent. He had no qualms describing respondent as having brought shame to their family and as somebody who has oppressed her own relatives, resorted to "oppressive dishonesties to feed her personal vainglory," used her age/seniority as an excuse to liberate herself from administrative liability, employed "tricks and deception" to fool the IBP, used "satanic terminologies" in her pleadings, possessed of "long time bad character," guilty of "long time deceptions" and hypocrisies, and too lucky to still be alive as her "atrocity" in mistreating complainant would have merited, in a non-Christian country, the penalty of death by hanging or beheading in public view. Complainant is clearly imposing on respondent standards which he cannot himself comply with as a litigant.
The circumstances of this case, including the fact that complainant filed 42 cases against respondent and her family, clearly indicate that the disbarment complaints were filed to forestall respondent's efforts to evict complainant from the subject property. In Manubay, 57 the Court dismissed a complaint for misconduct against a lawyer, holding that:
Third, the filing of the administrative Complaint is consistent with the perceived effort of complainant to stymie the ejectment suit filed against him by respondent and her client, Lolita Hernandez. Complainant had already instituted four other suits, including an action for "DECLARATION OF LEASE, NULL AND VOID, AB INITIO; TO FIX A LONGER PERIOD [OF] LEASE; [TO] FIX [A] REASONABLE AMOUNT OF RENTAL; INTERPLEADER WITH CONSIGNATION; TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING ANY OF DEFENDANTS FROM EJECTING THE PLAINTIFF WITH DAMAGES." This administrative case, the fifth in a long line of cases, is manifestly aimed at hampering or at least discouraging the efforts of the lessor's counsel to eject him from the subject premises. 58 cTDaEH
As the Court held in Seares, Jr. v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate: 59
Such an ill-motivated bid to disbar Atty. Gonzales-Alzate trifles with the Court's esteem for the members of the Bar who form one of the solid pillars of Justice in our land. We cannot tolerate it because attorneys are officers of the Court who are placed under our supervision and control due to the law imposing upon them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities. We exist in a symbiotic environment with them where their duty to defend the courts is reciprocated by our shielding them from vindictive individuals who are deterred by nothing just to strip them of their privilege to practice law. (Citation omitted) 60
It bears to reiterate that:
A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice. 61
WHEREFORE, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Resolution No. XXI-2015-173 dated February 20, 2015 and Resolution No. XXII-2017-810 dated January 27, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors in CBD No. 12-3588, CBD Case No. 12-3608, CBD Case No. 12-3624 CBD Case No. 12-3666, CBD Case No. 14-4100, CBD Case No. 14-4118 and CBD Case No. 14-4194. Accordingly, said Resolutions are hereby AFFIRMED and the cases DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as Nueva Nuyda-Joson in some pleadings.
2.Rollo, p. 2.
3.Id. at 54.
4.Id. at 54-55.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3.
7.Id. at 15, 16-18.
8.Id. at 22.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id. at 25.
11.Id. at 27.
12.Id. at 88.
13. Id. at 30.
14. Id. at 34.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 6-8.
17. Id. at 88.
18. Id. at 205.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 256.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 257.
23. Id. at 234.
24. Id. at 256.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 308-309.
27. Id. at 330-331.
28. Id. at 362.
29. Id. at 377-378.
30. Id. at 379.
31. Id. at 383.
32. Id. at 389-390.
33. Id. at 421.
34. Id. at 491-493.
35. Id. at 515-520.
36. Id. at 598-600.
37. Id. at 605-606.
38. Id. at 606.
39. Id. at 606-608.
40. Id. at 607.
41. Id. at 924-925.
42. Id. at 986.
43. Id. at 985-986.
44. Id. at 977.
45. Id. at 974.
46. Ylaya v. Atty. Gascott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).
47. Id. at 408.
48. Id.
49. Rivera v. CA, 348 Phil. 734, 736 (2008).
50. Section 415, Local Government Code of 1991.
51. Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, 386 Phil. 440, 444 (2000).
52. Belen v. People, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017.
53. Id.
54. Id.
55. Uy v. Atty. Depasucat, 455 Phil. 9, 18 (2003).
56. Belen v. People, supra.
57. Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, supra note 51.
58. Id. at 444-445.
59. 698 Phil. 596 (2012).
60. Id. at 608.
61. Id. at 608 citing De Leon v. Atty. Castelo, 654 Phil. 224, 239-240 (2011).