Torres Case Digest

Torres vs. Javier September 21, 2005 Complaint date: Novermber 26, 2002 Complainants: Atty. Ireneo . Torres ! "rs. Natividad Celestino #espondent: Atty. Jose Con$ep$ion Javier Gross misconduct in ofce as an attorney and/or violation o the lawyer’s oath %a$ts: -Respondent allegedly made statements/remarks in the pleadings he fled in a petition petition to a&dit all unds o the UEFA, as counsel or therein petitioners including his wie, against herein complainant Atty. reneo  !orre  !orres s

labor r -also in another labo complainant Atty. !orres

$ase $ase as coun counse sell agai agains nstt her herein ein same same

T'#(( CA)S(S *% ACTI*N S(T + C*"-AINANT Torres/: ". n the the #otio #otion n to E$pe E$pedi dite te fled fled in the the a&dit $ase, complainants allege that it contained statements which are a%solutely alse, unsu%s unsu%stan tantia tiated ted,, and with with malic maliciou ious s imputa imputatio tion n o crime crimes s o  ro%%ery, thet o UEFFA&s unds, destruction or concealment o  UEF UEFA&s A&s docu docume ment nts s and and some some othe otherr acts acts tend tendin ing g to caus cause e dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their persons.

violated te attorney attorneys s oat 'ompla 'omplaina inants nts a(er a(er that that respon responden dentt violated that he )o%ey the laws) and )do no alsehood,) the 'ode o *roessional Responsi%ility particularly Rule "+.+" thereo, and Rule ", specifcally paragraph + 0 o the Rules o 'ourt or directly pointing to them as the person persons s who intent intention ionall ally y commi committe tted d the ro%%e ro%%ery ry at the UEFA UEFA o1ce, o1ce, and or citing citing the Ander Andersen sen/En /Enro ron n case case which which is irre irrele( le(ant ant,, impertinent, and immaterial to the su%2ect o 3uasi-2udicial in3uiry. in3uiry. . 'omplainan 'omplainants ts allege that that in the attorney&s attorney&s ees ees case, responde respondent, nt, in his )Reply to Respondents !orres and #ar3ue40 Answer Ans wer/'o /'omme mment) nt) fled fled %eor %eore e the 567E, 567E, used used langua language ge that that was clearly a%usi(e, o8ensi(e, and improper, inconsistent with the character o an attorney as a 3uasi-2udicial o1cer. o1cer. . 'omp 'ompla lain inan ants ts alle allege ge that that respo esponde ndent nt made made stat statem emen entt that that is demeaning to the integrity o legal proession.

“It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public asking their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a notarial oce and sign for them. These girlfriends, nephews, etc. take adavits, administer oaths and certify documents.” 

C*""(NT by te #espondent: 1. *roesses that he was angry while preparing the #otion to E$pedite 2. Respondent stresses that he elt that it was his duty to inorm the 97R o the loss o the (ital documents so that the resolution o the pending motion or reconsideration fled %y complainants would %e e$pedited . 'laims that Atty. !orres complainant0 in his Answer in the attorney:s ees case )mocked his wie and a%ricated and distorted realities; %y including malicious, li%elous and impertinent statements and accusations against his wie which e$asperated him. 3. 'laims that Atty. !orres complainant0 wrote alse accusations against respondent:s client and continued harassing his clients including his wie %y fling %aseless complaints or alsifcation o  pu%lic document. ISS)(: W/n respondent is guilty o gross misconduct in ofce as an attorney and/or violation o the lawyer’s oath. '(4: #(S-*N4(NT IS S)S-(N4(4 rom pra$ti$e o la or one mont. 1. %irst $a&se o a$tion a&dit $ase7(nron $itation/: overr&led 2. Se$ond $a&se o a$tion: in relation to te ie alle8edly bein8 ins<ed/  !hat Atty. !orres may ha(e conducted himsel improperly is not a  2ustifcation or respondent to %e relie(ed rom o%ser(ing proessional conduct in his relations with Atty. !orres. -'learly, respondent&s primordial reason or the o8ensi(e remark stated in his pleadings was his emotional reaction in (iew o the act that herein 'omplainant was in a legal dispute with his wie. Tis e9$&se $annot be s&stained. ndeed, the remarks

3uoted a%o(e are o8ensi(e and inappropriate. !hat Respondent is representing his wie is not at all an e$cuse.

the

'lients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whate(er may %e the illeeling e$isting %etween clients should not %e allowed to in"ateriality and #elevan$y t is well entrenched in *hilippine 2urisprudence that or reasons o  pu%lic policy, utterances made in the course o 2udicial proceedings, including all kinds o pleadings, petitions and motions, are a%solutely pri(ileged so long as they are pertinent and rele(ant to the su%2ect in3uiry, howe(er alse or malicious they may %e.  !he re3uirements o materiality and rele(ancy are imposed so that the protection gi(en to indi(iduals in the interest o an e1cient administration o 2ustice may not %e a%used as a cloak rom %eneath which pri(ate malice may %e gratifed.  the pleader goes %eyond the re3uirements o the statute and alleges an irrele(ant matter which is li%elous, he loses his pri(ilege. n keeping with the dignity o the legal proession, a lawyer&s language must %e dignifed and choice o language is important in the preparation o pleadings.

CANNON  O! '$(&ON()+)*)", 

"#$

CO%$

O!

&'O!$(()ONA*

CAN*N ; < A A=(# S'A C*N4)CT 'I"S(% =IT' C*)#T(S, %AI#N(SSS AN4 CAN4*# T*=A#4 'IS -#*%(SSI*NA C*(A>)(S, AN4 S'A A?*I4 'A#ASSIN> TACTICS A>AINST *--*SIN> C*)NS(. Rule .+". A lawyer shall not, in proessional dealings, use language which is a%usi(e, o8ensi(e or otherwise improper. -instructs that respondent&s arguments in his pleadings should %e gracious to %oth the court and opposing counsel and %e o such words as may %e properly addressed %y one gentleman to another.