Canlapan Vs Velayo

Canlapan vs.
Atty Balayo
A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016
BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.
Complainant avers that at the mandatory conference held before Executive Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del
Valle, Jr., in connection with a money claim filed by complainant against the Boy Scouts of the Philippines
- Mayon Albay Council (Mayon Council), respondent arrogantly threw his arm toward the complainant
while menacingly saying: "Maski sampulo pang abogado darhon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo!"
("Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!")
Complainant was allegedly taken aback and felt humiliated by respondent's actuation, which showed a
blatant disrespect for the elderly considering that respondent was much younger. The incident was
witnessed by Higino M. Mata (Mata), First Vice Chair of the Mayon Council, who executed an Affidavit,
and employees of the National Labor Relations Commission, including the security guard.
Complainant never imagined that, in his twilight years and in his quest for justice, he would be publicly
humiliated by a young lawyer actively participating in the conference, who was neither a party to the labor
case nor was authorized by the Mayon Council to appear on its behalf.
Respondent avers that he has assisted Fajut in several cases. In addition, Fajut also consulted
respondent on the legality of ordinances and resolutions submitted to his office as a member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Malinao, Albay. When Fajut was elected Chair of the Mayon Council, he asked
respondent to help him on legal matters concerning his new role.
Issue: WON respondent was improper and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
As servants of the law, lawyers must be model citizens and set the example of obedience to law. The
practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expresses the lawyer's fundamental duty to
"uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law" Respondent's display of
improper attitude and arrogance toward an elderly constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the
legal profession and cannot be tolerated by this court.
Respondent also 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. Rule 7.03 provides:
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Furthermore, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to employ respectful and restrained language in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.42 Although the remark was allegedly made in response to
undue provocation and pestering on the part of complainant, respondent should have exercised restraint.
Notwithstanding his personal opinion on the merits of complainant's claims, it was improper for
respondent to state that even if complainant brought 10 (or as many) lawyers as he wanted, he would not
prosper in his claims against the Mayon Council. Careless remarks such as this tend to create and
promote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people's confidence in the legal
profession, and erode public respect for it. "Things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be
taken back."
Feelings between litigants may exist, but they should not be allowed to influence counsels in their conduct
and demeanor towards each other or towards suitors in the case. As officers of the court and members of
the bar, lawyers are expected to be always above reproach. They cannot indulge in offensive
personalities. They should always be temperate, patient, and courteous both in speech and conduct, not
only towards the court but also towards adverse parties and witnesses.
It has been ruled:
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession." This
proceeds from the lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's
integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a, lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private
activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is
sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.

Canlapan Vs Velayo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canlapan Vs Velayo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canlapan Vs Velayo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canlapan vs.

BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

It has been ruled:

You might also like