l\.

epublic of tbe flbilippines

~upreme

<!Court

;!ffilanila
FIRST DIVISION

MAXIMINO NOBLE Ill,

Complainant,
- versus ATTY. ORLANDO 0. AILES,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10628

Present:
SERENO, C.J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ
Promulgated:

'JUL 0 1 2015

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This instant administrative case arose from a verified Complaint 1 for
disbarment dated April 16, 2012 filed by complainant Maximino Noble III
(Maximino) against respondent Atty. Orlando 0. Ailes (Orlando) before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The Facts
Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010, Orlando, a lawyer, filed a
2
complaint for damages against his own brother, Marcelo 0. Ailes, Jr.
(Marcelo), whom Maximino represented, together with other defendants,
therein. In the said complaint, Orlando stated the following data: "IBP774058-12/07/09-QC xx x MCLE Compliance No. II-0008689 3/Issued on
March 10, 2008." 4 Maximino claimed that at the time of the filing of the said

Rollo, pp. 2-6.

Entitled "Orlando 0. Ailes v. Marcelo 0. Ailes Jr., et al." before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City docketed as Civil Case No. C-22601; id. at 7-13.
Complainant erroneously wrote "MCLE Compliance No. 11-00086899" in his Complaint dated April
16, 2012, id. at 2-3. See also Certification ofMCLE Office dated February 16, 2012; id. at 14.
Id. at 2-3. See also p. 12.

Resolution

A.C. No. 10628

complaint, Orlandos IBP O.R. number should have already reflected

payment of his IBP annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he
should have finished his third Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) Compliance, not just the second.
Sometime in December 2011, Maximino learned from Marcelo that
the latter had filed a separate case for grave threats and estafa 5 against
Orlando. When Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he
discovered that, through text messages, Orlando had been maligning him
and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming that
he was incompetent and that he charged exorbitant fees, saying, among
others: x x x Better dismiss [your] hi-track lawyer who will impoverish
[you] with his unconscionable [professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in
court records, never appeared even once, thats why you lost in the pre-trial
stage. x x x get rid of [Noble] as [your] lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of
money from [you]. x x x daig mo nga mismong abogado mong polpol.6
Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of
Counsel7 in the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino x x x
has never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a
manner not befitting his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and,
aside from charging enormous amount of professional fees and questionable
expenses, said counsels contracted services reached as far only in preparing
and filing uncalled for motions to dismiss x x x as well as a Compromise
Agreement,8 both of which he sent to Marcelo for his signature. Affronted,
Maximino filed the instant complaint charging Orlando with violation of
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), Bar Matter (BM) Nos. 8509 and 192210, and prayed
for the disbarment of respondent as well as the award of damages.
In his defense,11 Orlando denied the charges against him and claimed
that his late submission of the third MCLE compliance is not a ground for
disbarment and that the Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and
Compromise Agreement were all made upon the request of Marcelo when
the latter was declared in default in the aforementioned civil case. Moreover,
he insisted that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages sent to
Marcelo was used in a brother-to-brother communication and were uttered
in good faith.12

5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12

Id. at 16-22.
Id. at 17-21.
Id. at 25-26.
Id. at 27-28.
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Adopting the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education for Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (August 22, 2000).
Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All
Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsels MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption (June 3, 2008).
See Answer; rollo, pp. 49-52.
Id. at 51.

Resolution

A.C. No. 10628

Meanwhile, the criminal case for grave threats and estafa filed by
Marcelo against Orlando was downgraded to unjust vexation13 and, on June
19, 2012, after voluntarily entering a plea of guilty, Orlando was convicted
of the crime of unjust vexation, consisting in his act of vexing or annoying
Marcelo by texting insulting, threatening and persuading words to drop his
lawyer over a case x x x.14
IBP Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 15 dated April 30, 2013, the IBP
Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case against Orlando,
finding that a transgression of the MCLE compliance requirement is not a
ground for disbarment as in fact, failure to disclose the required information
would merely cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records. Neither did the IBP Commissioner find any
violation of the CPR so gross or grave as to warrant any administrative
liability on the part of Orlando, considering that the communication between
Orlando and Marcelo, who are brothers, was done privately and not directly
addressed to Maximino nor intended to be published and known by third
persons.
In a Resolution16 dated May 11, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the IBP Commissioners Report and
Recommendation and dismissed the case against Orlando, warning him to be
more circumspect in his dealings. Maximino moved for reconsideration 17
which was however denied in a Resolution 18 dated May 3, 2014 with
modification deleting the warning.
Aggrieved, Maximino filed the present petition for review on
certiorari.19
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly
dismissed the complaint against Orlando.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

See Maximinos Position Paper dated November 14, 2012; id. at 84.
Id. at 93. Penned by Judge Mario V. Manayon.
Id. at 192-195. Penned by Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero.
Id. at 191. Penned by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.
Id. at 276-280.
Id. at 287.
Id. at 220-230.

Resolution

A.C. No. 10628

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high

standards of legal proficiency and morality. 20 It is a special privilege
burdened with conditions before the legal profession, the courts, their clients
and the society such that a lawyer has the duty to comport himself in a
manner as to uphold integrity and promote the publics faith in the
profession.21 Consequently, a lawyer must at all times, whether in public or
private life, act in a manner beyond reproach especially when dealing with
fellow lawyers.22
In this relation, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR
provides:
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.
Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor toward 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.
Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer;
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give
proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Though a lawyers 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. 23 In Buatis Jr. v. People, 24 the
Court treated a lawyers use of the words lousy, inutile, carabao
English, stupidity, and satan in a letter addressed to another colleague
as defamatory and injurious which effectively maligned his integrity.
Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing counsel
is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.25
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his
brother Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were
conveyed privately. To the Courts mind, however, the tenor of the messages
20
21
22
23
24
25

Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., 630 Phil. 524, 530 (2010).

Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio, Jr., 611 Phil. 1, 13 (2009).
See Spouses Olbes v. Deciembre, 496 Phil. 799, 809-810 (2005).
Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., supra note 20, at 532.
520 Phil. 149, 161 (2006).
Nuez v. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450, 459-460 (2005).

Resolution

A.C. No. 10628

cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign
and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word polpol (stupid).
Likewise, Orlandos insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the
services of Maximino indicates Orlandos offensive conduct against his
colleague, in violation of the above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlandos
voluntary plea of guilty to the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case
filed against him by Marcelo was, for all intents and purposes, an admission
that he spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected Maximino a departure from the
judicial decorum which exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyers words and actions
directly affect the publics opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are
expected to observe such conduct of nobility and uprightness which should
remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be
disciplined in the event their conduct falls short of the standards imposed
upon them.26 Thus, in this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were
merely relayed to Orlandos brother in private. As a member of the bar,
Orlando should have been more circumspect in his words, being fully aware
that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is
owed. It was highly improper for Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino
to his client.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial
proceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which
subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. 27 While a lawyer is entitled to
present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the
use of offensive and abusive language. 28 The Court has consistently
reminded the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive personality
and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party.
Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando
transgressed the CPR when he maligned Maximino to his client.29
With regard to Orlandos alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court
agrees with the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for
MCLE compliance in the complaint for damages he had filed against his
brother Marcelo is not a ground for disbarment. At most, his violation shall
only be cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the expunction
thereof from the records.30
26
27
28
29
30

Spouses Olbes v. Deciembre, supra note 22.

Asa v. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9, 20 (2006).
Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio Jr., supra note 21, at 14 citing Saberon v. Larong, 574 Phil. 510 (2008).
See Spouses Olbes v. Deciembre, supra note 22, at 811.
Bar Matter No. 1922. x x x
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and
Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before
the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding

Resolution

A.C. No. 10628

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando 0. Ailes

GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to
be more circumspect in dealing with his professional colleagues and
STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.

w/.

ESTELA

~ERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson

t/, IA~"I~, ~oAlo ~ ~

Tit'RESI'TAJ. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
f>

Associate Justice

~REZ

ssociate Justice

compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.