COMELEC v.

NOYNAY
G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998

FACTS: In 1996, the Commission on Elections filed criminal cases against certain individuals
for violations of the Omnibus Election Code. The cases were filed with a Regional Trial Court in
Samar presided over by Judge Tomas Noynay. Judge Noynay however dismissed the said
cases as he ruled that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the said cases because said criminal
offenses were punishable with less than six years imprisonment. He said that said cases should
be filed with the MTC.

Atty. Jose Balbuena, member of COMELEC’s legal department, filed a motion for
reconsideration. He cited a case entitled: “Alberto Naldeza vs Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr., A.M No.
MTJ-94-1009, March 5, 1996 (245 SCRA 286)”. According to Atty. Balbuena, in the said case
he cited, the Supreme Court has already settled the issue and Atty. Balbuena even copied in
toto the said ruling by the Supreme Court in his motion.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Tomas Noynay is correct in dismissing the case.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court admonished Judge Noynay for dismissing the case as the same
was contrary to Section 32 of B.P. 129 as well as Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that election cases are within the
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts except certain cases (which were not the cases filed by
COMELEC in this case).

Section 32 of B.P. 129, on the other hand, provides that as a rule, Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine EXCEPT otherwise provided by special law. The Omnibus Election Code is a
special law which provides that election offenses, regardless of penalties, are under the
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.

Judge Noynay was not able to follow these rules. It is a judge’s duty to be studious of the
principles of law, to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law
itself, to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence.

On the other hand, Atty. Balbuena is also admonished for being reckless in citing cases. The
Supreme Court said that the passage cited by Balbuena in his Motion was not the actual
decision of the Supreme Court in the said case cited but rather the memorandum of the court
administrator which was quoted in the said case. Further, his citation of “Naldeza vs Lavilles,
Jr.” was wrong. Not only did he spell Naldeza wrong (as the correct spelling was NALDOZA),
he also cited the wrong SCRA. It should have been 254 SCRA 286 and not 245 SCRA 286.
Balbuena is reminded of Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
requires that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or
authority.

ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: In a resolution of the Supreme Court, Atty Dacanay was required to show cause why
he should not be disciplinary dealt with by intercalating a material fact in the quoted judgment of
the Court of Appeals, inserting “without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez
Realty” when in fact it did not make such finding.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Dacanay, by inserting phrase which is in fact not true, should be
disbarred.

HELD: YES. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court held that the inserted phase “without notice
to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty,” was just the right phrase intercalated at
the right place, making it highly improbable to be unintentionally, making it appear that
respondent Court of Appeals found that no notice was given to the occupants of subject
property –– when in fact it did not make such a finding –– is a clear indication not merely of
carelessness in lifting a portion of the assailed decision but a malicious attempt to gain undue
advantage in the sporting arena of fairplay and, more importantly, to deceive and misguide this
Court, which is the final arbiter of litigations.

He then violated Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which directs that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved”

Assuming it was the carelessness of his secretary,it is the duty of lawyers to check, review and
recheck the allegation in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions, and ensure that
the statements therein are accurate and the reproductions faithful, down to the last word and
even punctuation mark. The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over
pleadings, motions and other documents dictated or prepared by them, type or transcribed by
their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his
counsel, with more reason should counsel be bound the acts of his secretary who merely follow
his orders.
IN RE: SOTTO
82 Phil 595, January 21, 1949

FACTS: Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt in connection with his written statement of the Supreme Court's decision in the matter
of Angel Parazo' s case, which was published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in the
locality.

Sotto was given ten days more besides the five days originally given him to file his answer, and
although his answer was filed after the expiration of the period of time given him, the said
answer was admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the statement as it has been
published. He however, contends that under Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, which
confers upon this Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure, the Supreme Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the
citizens, and it can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be
promulgated by Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive. He also alleges in his
answer that, "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the
respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no intention of
offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal, who, in his
opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack the
honesty or integrity of any one.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sotto is guilty of contempt.

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court finds that the respondent, Atty. Sotto, knowingly published
false imputations against its members.

He accused them of such depravity as to have committed "blunders and injustices deliberately."
He has maliciously branded them to be incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of evil, "a
constant peril to liberty and democracy," to be the opposite of those who were the honor and
glory of the Philippine judiciary, to be needing a lesson in law, to be rendering an intolerable
sentence, to be needing replacement by better qualified justices.

The respondent has not presented any evidence or offered any to support his slanderous
imputations, and no single word can be found in his answer showing that he ever believed that
the imputations are based on fact.

It is also well settled that an attorney, as an officer of the court, is under special obligation to be
respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts, he may be removed from office or
stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct.
A.M. NO 10-10-4-SC, MARCH 8, 2011

FACTS: 37 members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law published
a statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law,
headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo
in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his work.

ISSUE: Whether the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: These 35 respondent law professors are reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons
10, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to
refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on pending
matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of justice and warned that the same or
similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

The separate Compliance of Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding the charge of violation of
Canon 10 is found UNSATISFACTORY. He is further ADMONISHED to be more mindful of his
duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and professor of law, to
observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court and warned that the same or
similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

NG v. ATTY. ALAR
AC No. 7252, November 22, 2006

FACTS: Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with the
Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the
dismissal. In his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used
improper and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and the ponente of
the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng, one of the respondents, filed a disbarment case against Alar
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such misbehavior.

Alar contended, inter alia, that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility applies
only suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on
disciplinary matters for litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule X of the NLRC
Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers and litigants
appearing in cases before it. Finally he asserted that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional
Responsibility does not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court and
that LAs and NLRC Commissioners are not judges nor justices and the Code of Judicial
Conduct similarly do not apply to them, not being part of the judiciary.
ISSUE: Is a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC susceptible of the provisions of the Code of
Professional Conduct?

RULING: The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral
and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of
diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not
admit any justification.

The assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, not being judges or justices
and therefore not part of the judiciary and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does
not apply to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that respondent became
unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member of the
Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of
law and ethics.

Respondent has clearly violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His
actions erode the public’s perception of the legal profession.

FERNANDEZ v. BELLO
G.R. No. L-14277, April 30, 1960

FACTS: Atty. Manuel Fernandez won a civil case for Florentino Perreyras however, Florentino
died without paying Fernandez. Fernandez then assisted the eldest child of Perreyras in a
guardianship proceeding so that the eldest may properly dispose of their property in order to
pay their father’s indebtedness. Eventually, Florentino’s nipa land was sold for P1,000.00.
Thereafter, P200.00 was paid to Atty. Fernandez for his legal services both for Florentino and
his heirs. Judge Bello found out about said payment and so directed Fernandez to explain
(because under the guardianship, proceeds of any sale must first be accounted for and no
payment to creditors shall be made without prior authorization from the court).

In the course of the proceeding however, Judge Bello stated that Fernandez does not deserve
the P200.00 attorney’s fees because Fernandez is a “below average standard of a lawyer.”
Fernandez then responded with strong language (which were not specified).

ISSUE: Whether the strong language used by Fernandez against the judge is proper.

HELD: The Supreme Court seem to say yes. The Supreme Court stated that the strong
language used by Fernandez must have been impelled by the same language used by Bello in
characterizing the act of Fernandez as “anomalous and unbecoming” and in charging him of
obtaining his fee “through maneuvers of documents from the guardian-petitioner.” If anyone is to
blame for the language used by Fernandez, it is Bello himself who has made insulting remarks
in his orders, which must have provoked Fernandez.. If a judge desires not to be insulted he
should start using temperate language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm.

On the issue of attorney’s fees, the opinion of a judge as to the capacity of a lawyer is not the
basis of the right to a lawyer’s fee. It is the contract between the lawyer and client and the
nature of the services rendered.

ATTY. BARANDON JR. v. ATTY. FERRER SR.

FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-
affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate
disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition
to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated
that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be
a notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon
saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na
palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines
Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet
before the start of a hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical
act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP
Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal
cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD
submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer.
The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s
violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to
Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite
the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the
threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and
litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed
Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but
reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

ISSUE: Is the penalty against respondent attorney proper?

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to
Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed
been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper
forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has
constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial
nature of our legal system.

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several
disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly
before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to show convincing evidence denying
the said charge against him.

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. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the
court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
Consequently, the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and
proper.

ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS ET AL v. CITY OF URDANETA, ET AL.

FACTS: This case stemmed from a Complaint for annulment of contracts with prayer for
preliminaryprohibitory injunction and temporary restraining order filed by respondent Waldo C.
Del Castillo, in hiscapacity as taxpayer, against respondents City of Urdaneta and Ceferino J.
Capalad doing business underthe name JJEFWA Builders, and petitioners Asean Pacific
Planners (APP) represented by Ronilo G. Gocoand Asean Pacific Planners Construction and
Development Corporation (APPCDC) represented by Cesar D.Goco.

Del Castillo alleged that then Urdaneta City Mayor Rodolfo E. Parayno entered into five
contracts for the preliminary design, construction and management of a four-storey twin cinema
commercial center and hotel involving a massive expenditure of public funds amounting to P250
million, funded by a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB). For minimal work, the
contractor was allegedly paid P95 million.

In their Answer, APP and APPCDC claimed that the contracts are valid. Urdaneta City Mayor
Amadeo R. Perez, Jr., who filed the city’s Answer, joined in the defense and asserted that the
contracts were properly executed by then Mayor Parayno with prior authority from the
Sangguniang Panlungsod .For respondent Ceferino J. Capalad, Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun filed an
Answer with compulsory counterclaim and motion to dismiss on the ground that Del Castillo has
no legal standing to sue.

After pre-trial, the Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel for Urdaneta City In its
Order dated September 11, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan,
and Branch 45, admitted the entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm and granted the
withdrawal of appearance of the City Prosecutor. It also granted the prayer to drop the city as
defendant and admitted its complaint for consolidation with Del Castillo’s complaint, and
directed the defendants to answer the city’s complaint.

It also granted Capalad’s motion to expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in his behalf.
Capalad was dropped as defendant, and his complaint filed by Atty. Jorito C. Peralta was
admitted and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo and Urdaneta City

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Sahagun violated Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Notice is taken of the offensive language used by Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio
B. Escalante in their pleadings before us and the Court of Appeals. They unfairly called the
Court of Appeals a “court of technicalities” for validly dismissing their defectively prepared
petition. They also accused the Court of Appeals of protecting, in their view, “an incompetent
judge.” In explaining the “concededly strong language,” Atty. Sahagun further indicted himself.
He said that the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the case shows its “impatience and readiness to
punish petitioners for a perceived slight on its dignity” and such dismissal “smacks of retaliation
and does not augur for the cold neutrality and impartiality demanded of the appellate court.”

Accordingly, we impose upon Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante a fine of
P2,000 each payable to this Court within ten days from notice and we remind them that they
should observe and maintain the respect due to the Court of Appeals and judicial officers;
abstain from offensive language before the courts; and not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record. Similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
MACEDA v. VASQUEZ
G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993

FACTS: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged
that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all civil and
criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have been
determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner
Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have
been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his
certificates of service for 17 months.

ISSUE: Whether the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into
the SC’s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts

HELD: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the
State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.

In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.

Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal
trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court
personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if
they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power,
without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same
to the SC for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of
their administrative duties.

RE: ATTY. BAGABUYO

FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from the events of the Criminal case proceeding
originally raffled to the sala of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser. Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer
to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution
was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. The counsel of the
defense filed a Motion to fix the amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty Bagabuyo, then Senior
state Prosecutor and the deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the
ground that the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not subject
of bail under the Rules of Court.

Judge Buser inhibited himself from further trying the case because of the harsh insinuation of
Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo that he lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate,
by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel for the
accused.

Respondent appealed to the CA. Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting to the accused in
the issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. The article, entitled Senior prosecutor lambast
Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.

The RTC of Surigao City directed respondent and the writer of the article to appear in court to
explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for the publication of the
article which degrade the court and its presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentation.

Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the press conference, but refused to answer
whether he made the statement in the article until after he shall have filed a motion to dismiss.
For his refusal to answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of court pursuant to the Rules
of Court.

ISSUE: Whether Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer.

HELD: YES. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear,
prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on
similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances
against a judge to the proper authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press
conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing
the accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying
judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing
murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily. Respondent’s statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144
was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall
not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party.

In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for
redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his
disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law,
that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he
was a liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of
observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v.
Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of
the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,
according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our
democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.

JUDGE LACUROM VS ATTY. JACOBA

FACT: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in
a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. The MTC of
Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the RTC.
The case was raffled where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge who issued a
Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Veneracion’s
counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration that uses sardonic, strident and hard-striking
adjectives.

ISSUE: Whether the respondents use of sardonic, strident and hard-striking adjectives is in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: Yes, Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts
and judges. However, even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack
made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s Resolution. On its face, the Resolution
presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting law and
jurisprudence. 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 unnecessary
language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial
administration. In maintaining the respect due to the courts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined to
use dignified language but also to pursue the client’s cause through fair and honest means.