ANON COMPLAINT
alleged sexual harassment of students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City
(Xavier).
The complainant identified him/herself as law practitioner and requested the Court to
investigate the sexual harassments.
Toyco explained that while she was never sexually assaulted, respondent's
unwelcome advances made her feel degraded as she could not easily ignore
respondent for fear of reprisal.
Sagarbarria narrated that respondent showed her a photograph revealing only the
face of a woman and asked her if she knew who the woman in the picture was. After
she realized that the woman in thr picture looked like her, respondent revealed the
entire photograph revealin§, a naked woman and teased her within hearing distance
of other law students.
Dal felt offended that she was subjected to such sexually charged language and the fact that her embarrassment was
other classes.
Respondent
It was Dal who gave him flowers
espondent countered that he confiscated the photograph from another student and
jokingly showed it to her in the spirit of their open and uninhibited relationship. He
noted that Sagarbarria is his niece and they were previously close as they would
oftentimes exchange discussions on sensitive and mature matters as adults without
any malice.
Respondent expounded that the joke was directed at himself and that Dal never
showed any resentment or showed any sign of humiliation as she even laughed at
the joke and continued to sit in front of the class.
Nevertheless, Director Esguerra expounded that while respondent's actions do not
constitute sexual harassment as defined by law, the way he interacted with his
students were unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. He stressed that
being a law professor, respondent should be worthy of emulation and should not
have used his position and stature to make offensive sexual insults on his students.
Director Esguerra postulated that the penalty of two years suspension is a sufficient
sanction to protect the public and the legal profession.
COURT
In addition, sexual harassment is also committed in an educational environment
when the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment. 12 In short, it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to
be sexual harassment as a superior's conduct with sexual underpinnings, which
offends the victim or creates a hostile environment would suffice.
Respondent's actions towards the students concerned definitely constitute sexual
harassment as defined by R.A. No. 7877 and the pertinent rules and regulation.
Respondent's conduct towards Sagarbarria, Dal and Toyco created a hostile and
offensive environment which has no place in a learning institution
Respondent's alleged close relationship with Sagarbarria is not an excuse as it does
not detract from the fact that he exhibited the indecent picture in a public place. It
would have been different had he shown the photograph privately to Sagarbarria
especially since he claims that as uncle and niece, they could talk about mature and
sensitive topics without malice.
These are not harmless text messages especially since it appears that these were
unwelcome flirtations which made Toyco uncomfortable. In addition, they cast a
cloud of impropriety considering that respondent was Toyco's teacher when he sent
them.
Respondent's statements made Dal uncomfortable and embarrassed in front of her classmates as it went beyond an
joke and was instead a gross graphic and an insensitive remark.
What makes respondent's act of sexual harassment even more reprehensible is the fact that he is both a professor a
member of the legal profession.
On the other hand, Canon 7 mandates that lawyers shall, at all times, uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Further, Rule 7 .03 of the CPR
commands lawyers not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, or behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
In other words, members of the bar are measured in a more demanding light
because their actions or inactions not only affect themselves, but also the legal
profession and the public's trust and respect for the law.
Again, what should be a place of learning and growth had become a place of fear
and distrust for the affected students.
Further, it is even more disappointing that respondent fails to acknowledge the
consequences of his actions and disregard the hurt Sagarbarria, Toyco and Dal may
have felt.
ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. VIRGIL R.
CASTRO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court.
Members of the bar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner
befitting their noble profession.
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed with the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
a Complaint-Affidavit1 with supporting documents2 against respondent Atty. Virgil R.
Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8
and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.3 The charge in the complaint is
summed up as follows:
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva
Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant's office to inquire
whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784, entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v.
Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin, had already been remanded to the
court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva Vizcaya. It must be
noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case No.
784.
Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a
certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to
serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin. To this
respondent retorted scornfully, "Who will certify the Court of Appeals' Decision, the
Court of Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified
true copy?" Surprised at this outburst, complainant replied, "Sir, it's in the Rules but
you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be representing."
Respondent then replied, "Then you should have notified me of the said requirement.
That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office since then, but you
never bothered to notify me." Complainant replied, "It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you
of the said requirement."
Respondent then answered, "You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record
of the case?" Complainant responded, "No, Sir, I mean, it's not our duty to notify you
that you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision." Respondent angrily
declared in Ilocano, "Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?" ("You mean
to say you don't care anymore? Is that the way it is?") He then turned and left the
office, banging the door on his way out to show his anger. The banging of the door was
so loud it was heard by the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was
taking place.4
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his
finger at complainant and shouted, "Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo
nga ibales kaniak ah!" ("Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against
my client, don't turn your ire on me!") Complainant was shocked at respondent's words
but still managed to reply, "I don't even know your client, Sir." Respondent left the
office and as he passed by complainant's window, he again shouted, "Ukinnam nga
babai!" ("Vulva of your mother, you woman!")5
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office
of which she was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her
credibility had been tarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command
full respect from her staff.6
The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days after the incident, was supported by
an Affidavit7 signed by employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed the
incident. The Affidavit narrated the same incident as witnessed by the said employees.
A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary Evidence was filed by complainant on
25 September 2003.8
On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued an Order9 requiring respondent to submit his
answer to the complaint. Respondent submitted his Compliance10 dated 18 June 2003.
Respondent explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 847,
entitled Sps. Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et al., filed with the
RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He learned of the finality of the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847 before the lower
court. Prior to the incident, he went to the office of the complainant to request for the
transmittal of the records of the case to the MCTC and the complainant reassured him
of the same.
Respondent admits having inquired about the status of the transmittal of the records on
5 May 2003. However, he has no explanation as to what transpired on that day.
Instead, he narrates that on 25 May 2003, twelve days after the incident, the records
had not yet been transmitted, and he subsequently learned that these records were
returned to the court of origin.
The hearing for the administrative complaint before the CBD was set on 25 September
2003 by the Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. However, on said date,
only complainant appeared. The latter also moved that the case be submitted for
resolution.11 Respondent later on filed a Manifestation stating that the reason for his
non-appearance was because he was still recuperating from physical injuries and that
he was not mentally fit to prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle was rained with
bullets on 19 August 2003. He also expressed his public apology to the complainant in
the same Manifestation.12
Complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next
hearing date in view of respondent's public apology, adding that respondent personally
and humbly asked for forgiveness which she accepted.13
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and
warned that any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with
more severely.14 The IBP submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and
approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.15
At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil
Case No. 784. Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to
present the required certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need
not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the decision since the Court
of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate original or
certified true copy of its decision.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were
already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and
there being no authorization from either the parties to represent them, respondent had
no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
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.
Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No.
784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of
record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784,
respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk
of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered
but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her
subordinates.
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco,16 respondent ought to have realized that this sort
of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and
erode public respect for it.17 These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01, to
wit:
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to
practice law, now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in 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.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times.18
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not
categorically deny the charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy narration of
the prefatory facts of the case as well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit that respondent's uncharacteristic
behavior was not an isolated incident. He has supposedly done the same to Attys.
Abraham Johnny G. Asuncion and Temmy Lambino, the latter having filed a case
against respondent pending before this Court.19 We, however, cannot acknowledge such
allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity of such claim. No affidavits to that
effect were submitted by either Atty. Asuncion or Atty. Lambino.
Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that
respondent had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not
to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are
accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent
afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered
cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or
contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It
emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN
THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar infraction with be dealt
with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant for
appropriate annotation in the record of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment
of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients2 to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance3 and
expeditious collection on their claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit5 of James Gregorio attesting
that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of ₱50,000. Complainant also attached
"respondent’s" calling card:6
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm.
M-01
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
Grace Park, Caloocan City
Back
Tel: 362-7820
Fax: (632) 3627821
Cel.: (0926)
2701719
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
1av vphi1
(emphasis supplied)
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of
the said calling card.7
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.8
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and recommendation,9 found
that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule
8.0210 and other canons11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he
contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers
as stated in Section 27, Rule 13812 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that
respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we modify the
recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainant’s
professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent
in furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the manner by which a
lawyer’s services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:
CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.13 To allow a
lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession
in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to
which every member of the bar is called.14
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers.15 Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.16
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man’s cause.
This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment)17 as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty.18
Complainant presented substantial evidence19 (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same
persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed
solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals’ suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the
mandatory hearing.
Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed
to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce a more
favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03
and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
1avv phi1
With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should
not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service,
good result or reduced fees for his services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never denied
having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labiano’s "referrals." Furthermore,
he never denied Labiano’s connection to his office.21 Respondent committed an unethical, predatory
overstep into another’s legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent
violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a
client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter
he is handling for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees for
transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is
handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected.22 It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he
is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money
to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the
subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.23 Either of these circumstances may
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement
which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty
of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.24
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice25 which calls for the exercise
of the Court’s disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for
initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment.26 Thus, in this
jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of
unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the prohibition on lending
money to clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the
wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A lawyer’s best
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his
character and conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by
publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyer’s name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.28
Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used
to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to
finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers,
thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass
commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession.
However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to
rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of
Labiano’s calling cards.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year