THIRD DIVISION

ATTY. IRENEO L. TORRES and MRS. Adm. Case No. 5910

NATIVIDAD CELESTINO,
 
Complainants,
Present :
 
 
 
PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
  CARPIO MORALES, and
GARCIA, JJ.
 
Promulgated:
 
'
ATTY. JOSE CONCEPCION JAVIER,
September 21, 2005
Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

By complaint [1] dated November 26, 2002, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs.

Natividad Celestino (complainants) charge Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier
(respondent) for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or
violation of the lawyer's oath.

The charges stemmed from the statements/remarks made by respondent in the

pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East
Faculty Association (UEFA), as counsel for the therein petitioners UEFA then
Treasurer Rosamarie Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President Eleonor Javier,
before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) against herein complainants, docketed as NCR-OD-0105-004-LRD (audit
case), [2] and from the pleadings filed by respondent in another labor case as
counsel for the one hundred seventy six (176) faculty members of the University of
the East complainants against herein complainant Atty. Ireneo L. Torres, et
al., [3] docketed as NCR-0D-0201-0005-LRD (attorney's fees case). [4]

The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of action against respondent.

The first cause of action is based on respondent's 'Urgent Motion to Expedite with
Manifestation and Reiteration of Position (Motion to Expedite) filed in the audit case
which complainants allege contained statements which are absolutely false,
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of crimes of robbery, theft of
UEFFA's funds, destruction or concealment of UEFA's documents and some other
acts tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their
persons. [5] Portions of the questioned motion read:

Undersigned attorney would like to manifest ' just so it can not be said later on that he
kept mum on the matter ' that when individual respondents-appellants realized that an
audit of Union funds was looming, it appears that they decided to destroy or conceal
documents as demonstrated by an 'Incident Report Re Robbery dated May 6, 2002 (a
copy just recently secured by the undersigned), attached hereto as Annex 'A', where
the police investigator stated that 'no forcible entry was noted by him but 'that air
condition on the respective rooms were (sic) slightly move (sic) to mislead that suspect
as the same as their point of entry.[] The police officers stated that 'no cash of (sic)
money were stolen but instead claimed that still undetermined documents/important
papers were stolen by the suspects.
 
This brings to mind the United States case against Andersen officials who shredded
documents related to the Enron scandal when they thought nobody was looking. As in
the Andersen/Enron case, the individual respondents-appellants in the instant case
knew that the law was going to come knocking at their door, asking a lot [of] questions
about financial matters.
 
From the undersigned's standpoint, the alleged 'robbery of 'still undetermined
documents/papers' was an inside job as investigation has shown that there is no
evidence of forced entry. Besides, it would be a cinch to establish a motive by
individual respondents-appellants Torres and Celestino to destroy documents related to
the audit ordered by Regional Director Alex E. Maraan. In any event, the undersigned
thinks that the legal process should go on. Lumang gimmick na 'yang 'robbery ng mga
evidensya. They may try to cover up the 'looting of union funds, but there is such a
thing as secondary evidence, not to mention the power of this Honorable Office to
issue subpoenas even to the union's depositary banks. [6] (Underscoring supplied)

Complainants aver that respondent violated the attorney's oath that he 'obey the
laws' and 'do no falsehood, the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Rule
10.01 thereof, and Rule 138, specifically paragraph 20 (f) of the Rules of Court for
directly pointing to them as the persons who intentionally committed the robbery at
the UEFA office, and for citing the Andersen/Enron case which is irrelevant,
impertinent, and immaterial to the subject of quasi-judicial inquiry. [7]

As second cause of action, complainants allege that in the attorney's fees case,
respondent, in his 'Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez) Answer/Comment
filed before the DOLE, used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and
improper, [8] inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial
officer. [9]

As third/last cause of action, complainants quote respondent's statement in the

aforesaid Reply, to wit:

It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public asking their sons, wives,
girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a notarial office and sign for them. These
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits, administer oaths and certify documents. x x
x, [10]
 
 

and allege that the statement is demeaning to the integrity of the legal profession,
'uncalled for and deserve[s] censure, [as] the same might shrink the degree of
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial document. [11]

By his Comment, respondent candidly professes that he was angry  [12] while he was
preparing his 'Motion to Expedite in the audit case, it having come to his knowledge
that the UEFA office had been burglarized and complainant Atty. Torres had been
spreading reports and rumors implicating his clients including his wife to the
burglary. [13]

Respondent stresses that he felt that it was his duty to inform the BLR of the loss of
the vital documents so that the resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration
filed by complainants would be expedited; [14] and that the information regarding
the burglary and his use of the Andersen/Enron case as a figure of speech were
relevant in drawing a link between the burglary and the audit ' the burglary having
rendered the complete implementation of the audit unattainable. [15]
 

With respect to the attorney's fees case, respondent claims that Atty. Torres did not
in his Answer confront the issues thereof but instead 'mock[ed] his wife and
fabricat[ed] and distort[ed] realities' [16] by including malicious, libelous and
impertinent statements and accusations against his wife which exasperated
him. [17] A portion of Atty. Torres' Answer in the attorney's fees case reads:

x x x in her incumbency as President of the UEFA for 12 years (1987-1999) she got
only about P2.00/hr CBA increase which took effect only [in] 1994, with no other
substantial improvements of the teacher's benefits, and yet she spent for more than
half a million negotiation expenses from the UEFA's funds. Her 1994-1999 CBA was
only a carbon copy of her old 1989-1994 CBA with no substantial improvements, with
uncertain amount of her expenses, because she removed/concealed all the financial
records of the UEFA during her term. . . I and the other lawyers/teachers denounced
her unlawful deduction of 10% attorney's fees from the small backwages received by
the teachers on April 28, 1993 although there was actually no lawyer who worked for
itand there was no Board nor General Membership Assembly Resolutions passedthe
assembly [Nov. 24, 2001] was apparently irked to Mrs. Eleanor Javier when she was
booed while talking on the floor, like a confused gabble (sic) [18]
 
 

Not wanting to allow his wife to be maligned by Atty. Torres, respondent admits
having responded with a counter-attack in his 'Reply to Respondents (Torres and
Marquez) Answer/Comment [19] wherein he stated:

What kind of a lawyer is this Atty. Torres? The undersigned feels that Atty. Torres just
cannot kick the habit of injecting immaterial, irrelevant, and impertinent matters in his
pleadings. More than that, he lies through his teeth. The undersigned thinks that if he
has any common sense at all he should shut up about his accusation  that Prof. Javier
spent more than half a million pesos for negotiation expensesshe obtained only P2-
increase in union members salary, etc. because of the pendency of the damage suit
against him on this score. He easily forgets the sad chapter of his life as a practitioner
when he lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit (Case No. NCR-OD-M-9401-
004) which he filed to gain 'pogi points prior to the UEFA election in 1994. [20]
 
xxx
 
To repeat, if respondent Atty. Torres has any common sense at all, he should stop
making irrelevant, libelous and impertinent allegations in his pleadings. This means
changing his 'standard tactic of skirting the main issues by injecting a web or a maze of
sham, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matters. [21] (Underscoring supplied)
 
 
Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring to the BLR's attention that Atty.
Torres had the habit of hurling baseless accusations against his wife to embarrass
her, including one for unjust vexation and another for collection and damages both
of which were dismissed after trial on the merits, thus prompting him to state that
'these dismissed cases indubitably indicate Atty. Torres' pattern of mental
dishonesty. [22]

Respondent further claims that in his Answer in the same attorney's fees case, Atty.
Torres accused his client, Prof. Maguigad, of forging the signature of a notary public
and of 'deliberately us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax Certificate in order to
justify the dismissal of the case against him (Atty. Torres); [23] and that Atty.
Torres continued harassing his clients including his wife by filing baseless complaints
for falsification of public document. [24] Hence, in defense of his clients, the
following statements in his Reply:

Respondent further concluded that lead petitioner Prof. Maguigad 'falsified the said
petition by causing it to appear that he participated in the falsification when he did not
in truth and in fact participate thereat . . . obviously oblivious of the obvious that it is
highly improbable for Prof. Maguigad to have forged the signature of the notary public.
If he intended to forge it, what was the big idea of doing so? To save Fifty Pesos
(P50.00) for notarial fee? Needless to say, the allegation that lead (sic) petitioner
Maguigad used a falsified Com. Tax Cert. is patently unfounded and malicious.
 
But that is not all. Respondents went further and charged Profs. Mendoza, Espiritu,
Ramirez and Javier with the same crime of falsification of public document . . . 'by
causing it to appear that Rogelio Maguigad had indeed participated in the act of
verifying/subscribing and swearing the subject petition before notary public Atty. Jorge
M. Ventayen, when in truth and in fact he did not participate thereat.
 
To the mind of the undersigned, this is the height of irresponsibility, coming as it does
from a member of the Philippine Bar. There is no evidence to charge them with
falsification of public document, i.e. the 'verification appended to the present petition.
They did not even sign it. The crime imputed is clearly bereft of merit. Frankly, the
undersigned thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law student would not oblige with
such a very serious charge.
 
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyer[s] to hear notaries public asking their sons,
wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to 'operate a notarial office and sign for them. These
girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits, administer oaths, and certify documents.
Believing that the said 'veification was signed by an impostor-relative of the notary
public [Atty. Jorge M. Ventayan] through no fault of his client, Prof. Maguigad, the
undersigned sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On
May 2, 2002, an NBI agent called up the undersigned to inform him that he arrested in
the area near UE one Tancredo E. Ventayen whom he caught in flagrante delicto
notarizing an affidavit of loss and feigning to be Atty. Jorge M. Ventayen, supposedly
his uncle. [25]

xxx
  

Petitioners devoted so much space in their answer/comment vainly trying to prove that
Profs. Maguigad, Mendoza, Espiritu, Ramirez, and Javier committed the crime of
falsification of public document reasoning out that they made 'untruthful statements in
the narration of facts' in the basic petition.
 
Respondent Torres is a member of the Philippine Bar. But what law books is he
reading?
 
He should know or ought to know that the allegations in petitioners' pleading are
absolutely privileged because the said allegations or statements are relevant to the
issues. [26] (Underscoring supplied)
 
 

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found
respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for using
inappropriate and offensive remarks in his pleadings.

The pertinent portions of the Investigating Commissioner's Report and

Recommendation read:

Respondent admits that he was angry when he wrote the Manifestationand alleges that
Complainant implicated his wife in a burglary. Moreover, Respondent alleges that
Complainant has been 'engaged in intimidating and harassing his wife.
 
It appears that herein Complainant and herein Respondent's wife have had a series of
charges and counter-charges filed against each other. Both parties being protagonists
in the intramurals within the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA). Herein
Complainant is the President of the UEFA whereas Respondent's wife was the former
President of UEFA. Nevertheless, we shall treat this matter of charges and counter-
charges filed, which involved the UEFA, as extraneous, peripheral, if not outright
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
 
xxx
Clearly, [r]espondent's primordial reason for the offensive remark stated in his
pleadings was his emotional reaction in view of the fact that herein Complainant was in
a legal dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be sustained. Indeed, the remarks
quoted above are offensive and inappropriate. That the Respondent is representing his
wife is not at all an excuse. [27] (Underscoring supplied)
 
 

Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be

reprimanded.
 

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), by

Resolution [28] of October 7, 2004, adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

The Report of the IBP faulting respondent is well-taken but not its recommendation
to reprimand him.

It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,

utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they
are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they
may be. [29]

The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so that the protection
given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of justice may not
be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be gratified. [30] If
the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant
matter which is libelous, he loses his privilege. [31]

A matter, however, 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 or impropriety. [32] That matter alleged in a pleading need
not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must,
however, 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. [33]

The first cause of action of complainants is based on respondent's allegation in his

'Motion to Expedite that a burglary of the UEFA office took place, and his imputation
to complainants of a plausible motive for carrying out the burglary ' the
concealment and destruction of vital documents relating to the audit. The
imputation may be false but it could indeed possibly prompt the BLR to speed up
the resolution of the audit case. In that light, this Court finds that the first cause of
action may not lie.
 

As regards the second cause of action, it appears that respondent was irked by Atty.
Torres' Answer to the complaint in the attorney's fees case wherein he criticized his
(respondent's ) wife's performance as past President of UEFA.

This Court does not countenance Atty. Torres' incorporating in his Answer in the
attorney's fees case statements such as 'the assembly . . . was apparently irked by
Mrs. Eleonor Javier when she was booed while talking on the floor like a confused
gabble (sic). But neither does it countenance respondent's retaliating statements
like 'what kind of lawyer is Atty. Torres?, 'he lies through his teeth, 'if he has any
common sense at all he should shut up, and Atty. Torres forgets the sad chapter of
his life as a practitioner when he lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit
which he filed to gain pogi points. Nor respondent's emphasis that Atty. Torres is of
the habit of hurling baseless accusations against his wife by stating that the
dismissal of the cases against his wife, of which Atty. Torres was the complainant,
indubitably indicate Atty. Torres' pattern of mental dishonesty.

The issue in the attorney's fees case was whether the 10% attorney's fees 'checked
off from the initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is legal. Clearly, the above-
quoted statements of respondent in the immediately preceding paragraph cannot be
said to be relevant or pertinent to the issue. That Atty. Torres may have conducted
himself improperly is not a justification for respondent to be relieved from observing
professional conduct in his relations with Atty. Torres.

Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the ill-feeling existing
between clients should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct toward
each other or toward suitors in the case. [34]

In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was acting as counsel for himself as
respondent and complainant was acting as counsel for his wife as complainant.
Although it is understandable, if not justifiable, that in the defense of one's clients -
especially of one's wife or of one's self, the zeal in so doing may be carried out to
the point of undue skepticism and doubts as to the motives of opposing counsel, the
spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and
recrimination is far from edifying, and detract from the dignity of the legal
profession. [35]

 
Moreover, in arguing against the dismissal of the attorney's fees case on the basis
of the alleged forgery of the notary public's signature, respondent did not only
endeavor to point out that Atty. Torres erred in advancing such an argument, but
personally attacked Atty. Torres' mental fitness by stating that 'the undersigned
thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law student would not oblige with such a
very serious charge, and '[r]espondent Torres is a member of the bar [b]ut what
law books is he reading.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language must be
dignified and choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. [36] In
the assertion of his client's rights, a lawyer ' even one gifted with superior intellect
'is enjoined to rein up his temper. [37]

As reflected above, the inclusion of the derogatory statements by respondent was

actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to
which the mantle of absolute immunity does not extend. Personal colloquies
between counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling should be
carefully avoided. [38]

If indeed Atty. Torres filed criminal complaints for falsification of public documents
against respondent's clients as a scheme to harass them, they are not without
adequate recourse in law, for if they plead for a righteous cause, the course of
justice will surely tilt in their favor, the courts being ever vigilant in the protection
of a party's rights. [39]

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

CANON 8 ' A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESSS

AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
 
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
 
 

instructs that respondent's arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to both

the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed
by one gentleman to another. [40] The language vehicle does not run short of
expressions

which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but
not offensive. [41]

As to the reference by respondent to the unfortunate and contemptible practice of

notaries public ' basis of the last cause of action, while it may detract from the
dignity that should characterize the legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial
document, respondent, who justifies the same as legitimate defense of his client
who was being accused by Atty. Torres of forgery, may, given the relevance of the
statement to the subject matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of the doubt.

Respecting the verified complaint ' Annex 'EJ-A [42] to the Comment of respondent
filed by his wife, Prof. Eleonor R. Javier, against complainant Atty. Torres, the same
cannot be consolidated with the present administrative case since the parties and
causes of action of such complaint are completely different from those of the
present complaint.

WHEREFORE , for employing offensive and improper language in his pleadings,

respondent Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
One (1) Month, effective upon receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
WARNED that any future infraction of a similar nature shall be dealt with more
severely. '

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country for their information
and guidance.

SO ORDERED.