Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra Case Digest
Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra
A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016
Facts
This instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by
complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty.
Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group,
Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and
engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is
the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio ), who filed criminal cases
against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002
and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and
verbally abusing complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted
remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical
personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or
justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:
Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My
Client’s Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don’t kiss Belo’s ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip
na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national
campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No goons, No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!
Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio’s Big Bang on Friday -You
will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK
QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my
partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles �� (September 22 at 11:18pm)
Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office
receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng
Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso … si Imelda Marcos nga sued me
for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15
at 12:08pm
Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may ‘extra-legal’ budget yon. Kaya Lang,
bistado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa
isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)
Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BA TCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NJYO AKO
KUNG MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want]
1
to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens of
millions …. (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx xxx xxx
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well
as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated
August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against
respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No.
09-2551.
In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his
constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by
complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant to be
shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part. He also averred
that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the
complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against
complainant. He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made
them in order to inspire public hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that he
attempted to extort money from her, explaining that he sent the demand letter as a
requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for
damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out that complainant was a public figure
who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.
Issues:
1. Whether respondent can validly invoke his right to privacy.
2. Whether respondent can validlyn invoke freedom of speech.
SC Ruling
Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks
about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense, however, he invokes
his right to privacy, claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private account" that
can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus, when complainant accessed the same,
she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
The defense is untenable. Before, can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online
social networking activity -in this case, Facebook -it is first necessary that said user
manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize
in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words,
utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's
invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting
complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter
has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook
available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few.
Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject
posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends,
respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.
2
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were
limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same -or other
digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile -will be safeguarded
as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following:
1. Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the
tools to interact and share in any conceivable way";
2. A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
3. The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
4. A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not
Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own
Facebook friends.
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee
absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's
circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her
own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Face
book friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is
tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was
tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the
circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
As to the second issue, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression,
like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. As such, the constitutional right of freedom
of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy
their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant
and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people
to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name
and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ( "binaboy
") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of
BMGI's services -all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had
already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for
criminal negligence and estafa -which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice."
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act
of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject
Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions
in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
3
Rule 8.01 -A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 -A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,
respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum
at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave
in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead,
he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law,
and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning
complainant's and BMGI' s reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage
who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the
cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant
breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation
of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon
his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES v. ATTY.
GUEVARRA
A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016
ROBERTO
"ARGEE"
C.
Facts:
Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group,
Inc. On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio,
who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure
on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in
2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online
social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant.
The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account
that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire
medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause.
4
Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly
threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof.
Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to
extort money from her, as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a
comment on his Facebook post.
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well
as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated
August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against
respondent.
Issue
1. Whether or not complainant violated the right of privacy of respondent, claiming that they
were "private remarks" on his "private account" that can only be viewed by his circle of
friends.
2. Whether it is violative of the freedom of expression
3. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations
of the verified complaint.
Ruling
First Issue
To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was
armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile,
as well as information uploaded by the user.
Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user manifests
the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to
prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace
through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her
right to informational privacy.
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting
complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter
has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook
available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few.
Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject
posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends,
respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.
5
Restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of
friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own
Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook
friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged,
the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged
can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the
circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
Second issue
No. Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like
all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. The constitutional right of freedom of
expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy
their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant
and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people
to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name
and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured
("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a
boycott of BMGI's services all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that
Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with
conviction for criminal negligence and estafa which is contrary to one's obligation "to act
with justice."·
Third Issue:
Yes. The subject Facebook posts are in complete and utter violation of the following
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
6
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,
respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum
at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave
in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead,
he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law,
and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning
complainant's and BMGI's reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage
who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the
cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant
breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
Penalty: suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year
AC. No. 6593
Maelotisea S. Garrido, complainant
vs Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Romana Valencia
Facts:
The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint -affidavit and a
supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and
Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind
through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his
wife and already had a child with her, and the same information was confirmed when one
of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other
respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow.
After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded
results telling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong
Kong. Moreover , on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined atty.
Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed
financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet
when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
ISSUE:
7
Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the
offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.
RULING:
Yes. Membership in the BAR is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law
though the supreme court, membership in the BAR can be withdrawn where
circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers,
be they academic or moral.
In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.
Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Furthermore, the contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got
married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was
already required as such condition precedent to admission to the BAR.
As, a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were
shouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting
obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit
the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the
petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married to Garrido despite knowing of his other
marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of
moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyer within the country.
As such, their disbarment is affirmed.
LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO
FACTS:
Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a
complaint of disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services alleging that respondent, with the help of paralegal
Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to said
respondent with the promise of financial assistance and expeditious collection on their
claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages. Complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano convinced him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and use
respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.
ISSUE
8
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino’s actions violate Rule 2.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING
YES. The court adopted the findings of the IBP on unethical conduct of the
respondent whereby it found the respondent to have encroached on the professional
practice of complainant, violating Rule 2.03 of the CPR which 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. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a
ground for disbarment. 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) as
a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty.
Based on such, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is found to have violated Rules 1.03, 2.03,
of the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
MENDOZA VS GADON
FACTS:
• Complainant Dr. Helen Mendoza o a dermatologist o holds her clinic under an
arrangement with Ambulatory Health Care Institute, Inc. (AHCII), where she paid monthly
rental fee for occupying a space in Clinica Manila o rental fee is paid in addition to her
purchase of equity in AHCII o a certain portion of her professional fees shall be shared
with AHCII
• 07 MAR 2009 – Dr. Mendoza treated a patient who had an allergic reaction to the
medicine she prescribed. The patient returned the next day to complain, but was
disappointed by the way Dr. Mendoza handled the situation. The patient filed a complaint
with Clinica Manila.
• 13 MAR 2009 – AHCII suspended Dr. Mendoza from the practice of her profession. o
Dr. Mendoza alleges that it was Atty. Gadon, the corporate secretary and VP of AHCII,
who suspended her without authorization from the board of directors and without just
cause.
• 04 APR 2009 – AHCII allowed Dr. Mendoza to resume the practice of dermatology in
Clinica Manila but under a reduced number of hours. o Dr. Mendoza demanded the
restoration of her original clinic hours, otherwise, she will file the appropriate criminal and
civil actions.
9
• 23 APR 2009 – Atty. Gadon responded that AHCII was revoking her privilege to practice
in Clinica Manila and returning an amount representing the equity she invested. • 03 AUG
2009 – Dr. Mendoza filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Gadon charging the
latter with violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR Canon 1, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8,
and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19. o Dr. Mendoza noted the very insulting manner the letter
was worded; such words were “thoroughly unbecoming of a member of the bar to write.”
o She also contended that Atty. Gadon fabricated lies stating the AHCII stating that AHCII
had been dissolved to prevent her from exercising her right to examine the corporate
records. o Atty. Gadon’s treatment of her counsel, Atty. Martinez, violated the Canons of
Professional Ethics after Atty. Gadon moved that Atty. Martinez be found guilty of giving
erroneous legal advice to his client. o Atty. Gadon also had no qualms in using
intemperate language, and unbecoming statements that displayed a lack of courtesy and
candor towards his professional colleagues. (see notes for an excerpt of Atty. Gadon’s
letter dated April 23, 2009 to Dr. Mendoza) • Atty Gadon’s Answer: o His letter-response
to Dr. Mendoza is frank, straight forward, equivocal, and not “very insulting” as claimed
by Dr. Mendoza.
he current company is different from the previous one since the registration of AHCII had
been revoked. As a result, Dr. Mendoza cannot exercise her right as a stockholder of the
new corporation.
o The instant case is not the proper forum to determine the rights of Dr. Mendoza and
cannot be a ground for a disbarment case since the circumstance was not caused by him.
o If anybody should be disbarred, it should be the legal counsel of Dr. Mendoza for being
arrogant in sending a demand letter without first ascertaining the facts on which he could
base his demands.
o Dr. Mendoza’s legal counsel is trying to become an ambulance chaser, full of bravado,
empty rhetoric and grandstanding who would blindly give wrong advice to a client just to
foment controversy.
o The complaint states no cause of action and was filed in order for the legal counsel to
save face towards his client since he cannot admit committing a mistake in threatening
the management with legal action after the suspension of the clinic privileges of Dr.
Mendoza.
• IBP Report and Recommendation of Commissioner recommended that Atty. Gadon be
suspended from the practice of law for 4 months. o 11 FEB 2014 - Board of Governors
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva,
with the modification that the suspension be for 3 months.
ISSUE/S & RATIO: W/N Atty. Gadon was guilty of violating Canon 1 and Canon 8 of
CPR. –
YES. • The language of Atty. Gadon in his reply-response to Dr. Mendoza was violative
of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR o An excerpt of Atty. Gadon’s letter dated April 23,
2002 to Dr. Mendoza reads: “We are prepared to face any legal suits that would come
out of this exercise, and assuming you may get a favorable result after 10 years, that is
10
IF you will win, which is still a big question since we will not also take this matter sitting
down as we have a lot of resources to uses as well while in the meantime you altogether
forfeit your clinic practice.” (see notes for the portion quoted by the Court) o Atty. Gadon's
primary duty is to obey the laws and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Corollary to this duty is his obligation to abstain from dishonest or deceitful conduct, as
well as from “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system." o Atty. Gadon’s remarks about the slow justice system and insinuations that
cases are won based on abundance of resources, tramp the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and the judicial system. o Atty. Gadon should refrain from using abusive
and intemperate language which displays arrogance towards the legal system and his
colleagues.
• The language of Atty. Gadon in his rejoinder violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR
o The pertinent portion in his rejoinder reads: “At the risk of being reprimanded by this
Honorable Commission, respondent [cannot] help and [cannot] resist expressing his
thought that this is dumbest and the most stupid statement I have encountered in my
years of practice of law. In fact, people who have read the statement nearly died of
laughing and also declared that it was the most stupid statement they have ever heard in
their entire lives. They even commented that people responsible for writing this statement
ought to commit suicide for being too ignorant.” (see notes for the portion quoted by the
Court) o The language imputing ignorance and wrong-doing to Dr. Mendoza’s counsel
goes against the Rule on candor, fairness and truthfulness since Atty. Gadon did not
argue against Dr. Mendoza’s issued but against the propriety of the legal advice dispense
by the counsel of Dr. Mendoza. o Atty. Gadon failed to conduct himself toward his fellow
lawyer with that courtesy that all have the right to expect. • Other quoted portions of Atty.
Gadon’s answer to the complaint filed by Dr. Mendoza before the IBP that show the
malicious and arrogant language used by Atty. Gadon: o “another outrageously funny and
ridiculous statement totally devoid of any logic and reason… Who does she think she is
– the only qualified doctor in town?... From where did she get this outrageously funny,
conceited and arrogant claim?” o “is the hands-down killer which is grossly and
outrageously misplaced allegations and claims. From where did she based her claim on
the birth right to own clinic hours in Clinica Manila?” o “is denied for being outrageously
hilarious… Since when does a frank candid words become illegal? Since when does a
language become “illegal[?]” Is there such a thing as “illegal language”? I am not a
language expert myself, somebody help me please;” o “is outrageously funny and
therefore denied. What does the doctrine of [res ipsa loquitor] got to do with the
disbarment case over the incident? Since when does a frank and unequivocal letter which
is not even libelous a ground for disbarment? Is she getting the proper legal advice? What
is this?” o “is again outrageously funny… Where do they get these twisted ideas and
strange concepts? Are these people suffering from Alzheimer’s or what have you? Where
do they get these gutter logic and reasoning?” o “If there is anybody who should be
disbarred, it is the legal adviser of the complainant. In my personal opinion, her adviser
committed a big mistake in sending an arrogant demand letter without first ascertaining
all the facts that he could base his demands. A seasoned lawyer would have made a
careful study of the facts and issued from all angles before advising a client because the
client will suffer more if it will act on the basis of a careless advice. The lawyer failed to
11
verify his facts about the alleged “lease contract” of complainant with Clinica Manila. What
Lease contract? Does he think Shoemart management would allow its tenants to
sublease the rented premises? When he was born… The respondent hopes that this
lawyer is not just trying [to] become an ambulance chaser who is full of bravado, empty
rhetoric, and grandstanding who would blindly give wrong advice to his client to foment a
controversy hoping it would end up in litigation. A seasoned lawyer, in the same situation
would advise the client to settle her issued through a personal letter and personal
approach
given
the
circumstances
that the matter is just a business concern and that a humble, discerning, diplomatic
approach is the key ingredient rather than sending threatening demand letters.” o “. . .
This is a classic example of an approach based on miscalculation, misplaced bravado,
and grandstanding resulting to damage and prejudice to the client’s cause and interest.”
W/N Atty. Gadon should be disbarred.
– NO. • “We find the penalty of disbarment too severe to be warranted in the instant case”
• Francia v. Atty. Abdon o The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and
may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. o
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end
desired. • We find the penalty of suspension, considering the gravity and consequence of
Atty. Gadon’s actions, to be the appropriate penalty in the instant case. FULL
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, finding the recommendation of the IBP Board
of Governors to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the
Court RESOLVES to SUSPEND Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) months, to commence immediately upon receipt of this Resolution, for
violation of Canon 1, Canon 8, an d Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely. Atty. Gadon is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of
this Resolution within five (5) days from notice, to enable this Court to determine when
his suspension shall take effect. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administration which shall circulate the
same in all courts in the country, and attach to the personal records of Atty. Lorenzo G.
Gadon in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
12
13