Aseron vs. Diño, Jr.

A lawyer who uses abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language toward a fellow lawyer in professional dealings violates Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be sanctioned with a reprimand, especially where the offensive language consists of unsubstantiated accusations imputing unethical conduct to opposing counsel.

Atty. Delio M. Aseron and Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. were opposing counsel in criminal and civil cases arising from a vehicular accident on January 25, 2009, along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, involving a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI) and driven by Jerry Garcia. Aseron was the injured party and complainant in the underlying cases; Diño served as counsel of record for Garcia and NATI. The ethical dispute arose from correspondence between the two lawyers regarding Aseron's demand for damages stemming from the accident.

On January 25, 2009, Atty. Delio M. Aseron figured in a vehicular accident along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI), then driven by Jerry Garcia. Aseron subsequently filed a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Serious Physical Injuries against Garcia before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, docketed as Criminal Case No. 025403, and a civil case for Damages against Garcia and NATI before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-09-64558. In both cases, Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. served as counsel of record for Garcia and NATI.

On March 3, 2009, Aseron's counsel, Atty. Alberto H. Habitan, demanded from NATI damages of not less than ₱2,000,000.00 as a result of the accident. Diño replied in a letter dated March 20, 2009, which Aseron claimed was couched in abusive, disrespectful language, containing malicious and unfounded accusations that besmirched his reputation. In the letter, Diño stated that he received information that Aseron allegedly used his "influence" in persuading the former handling prosecutor of Inquest Case No. 09-388 not to allow the release of the passenger bus with Plate No. TWL-653 unless NATI agreed to immediately pay the "mercenary claim of Php 2 Million," characterizing the demand as a "hustler tactic."

Due to the insinuations in the reply letter, Aseron filed a libel case against Diño before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Aseron further alleged that Diño made a mockery of the judicial system by employing unwarranted dilatory tactics through the filing of numerous motions that were eventually denied for lack of merit in both the criminal and civil cases. Aseron also claimed that Diño committed malpractice by misleading the court when he admitted ownership of the passenger bus with body number 054 and plate number TWC 653 as that of NATI in one pleading and denied it in another.

On February 11, 2010, the IBP-CBD issued an Order directing Diño to file his Answer within 15 days from receipt, but he failed to do so. On August 9, 2010, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice directing the parties to attend a mandatory conference and to submit their respective briefs. On April 6, 2011, the IBP-CBD declared the case submitted for resolution due to Diño's failure to attend the mandatory conference and to file his brief. Commissioner Cachapero thereafter recommended censure, finding that Diño failed to conduct himself with the courtesy expected of a lawyer. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation on February 12, 2013, and after denying Diño's motion for reconsideration on September 27, 2014, modified the penalty from censure to reprimand.

• Intemperate Language: Complainant argued that respondent's reply letter was couched in abusive, disrespectful language, containing malicious and unfounded accusations that besmirched his reputation.
• Dilatory Tactics: Complainant alleged that respondent made a mockery of the judicial system by employing unwarranted dilatory tactics through the filing of numerous motions that were eventually denied by the courts for lack of merit.
• Misleading the Court: Complainant claimed that respondent committed malpractice by misleading the court when he admitted ownership of the passenger bus in one pleading and denied it in another.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Procedural Remedy: Whether a second motion for reconsideration is proper under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court in disbarment proceedings.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The respondent violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR when he used abusive, offensive, and improper language in his letter to the complainant, imputing the use of influence without sufficient proof. The penalty of reprimand was found proper under the circumstances.
• Procedural Remedy: No. The rule does not recognize the filing of a second motion for reconsideration; the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45. Nevertheless, the Court treated the second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 45 in the interest of substantial justice, but denied it for lack of merit.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward fellow lawyers and to avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Rule 8.01 specifically prohibits the use of abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in professional dealings. The respondent's letter accused the complainant of using his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass respondent's clients during inquest proceedings, without sufficient proof or evidence to support the accusation. The Court agreed with the IBP-CBD and the Board of Governors that this constituted a breach of the respondent's ethical duties. While lawyers are entitled to present their case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge in a proper forum and without using intemperate language. Considering that the respondent was merely over-zealous in protecting his client's rights, the penalty of reprimand recommended by the IBP Board of Governors was found proper.
• Procedural Remedy: Under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as clarified in Bar Matter No. 1755, when the IBP Board of Governors renders a decision imposing a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from notice. If denied, the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the resolution. The rule does not recognize a second motion for reconsideration. However, consistent with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings—which focus on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar rather than procedural technicalities—the Court treated the respondent's second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 45. After careful perusal of the records, the Court found no sufficient reason to reverse the IBP's findings.

• Courtesy Toward Fellow Lawyers (Canon 8, Rule 8.01, CPR) — All members of the bar must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. The Court applied this rule to hold the respondent liable for imputing to the complainant the use of influence to harass respondent's clients, without sufficient proof, through language that was abusive, offensive, and improper.
• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — Disbarment proceedings are sui generis in nature, focusing on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar rather than on procedural technicalities. The Court invoked this principle to justify treating the respondent's second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review under Rule 45, in the interest of substantial justice.
• Proper Remedy After IBP Decision (Section 12, Rule 139-B) — When the IBP Board of Governors renders a decision exonerating the respondent or imposing a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from notice. If the motion is denied, the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the resolution. A second motion for reconsideration is not recognized.

• "Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive." — This passage articulates the standard of professional courtesy expected of lawyers, emphasizing that vigorous advocacy does not justify offensive language; it is frequently cited in subsequent legal ethics jurisprudence.
• "Clearly, the rule does not recognize the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. In fact, the rule expressly provides that the proper remedy of the losing party is to file a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with this Court." — This defines the exclusive procedural remedy available in disbarment cases where the IBP imposes a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, clarifying the procedural framework under Section 12, Rule 139-B.
• "As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge against the complainant in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong language in pursuit of his duty to advance the interest of his client." — This passage explains the duty of lawyers as officers of the court to channel their advocacy through proper forums and measured language, forming part of the ratio decidendi for the ethical violation found.

• Bar Matter No. 1755 — Cited as controlling authority for the proper procedure in disbarment cases under Section 12, Rule 139-B, clarifying that the remedy after denial of a motion for reconsideration before the IBP is a petition for review under Rule 45, not a second motion for reconsideration.
• Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, 690 Phil. 381 (2012) — Followed for the principle that disbarment proceedings are sui generis in nature, focusing on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer rather than procedural technicalities, justifying the Court's liberal treatment of the respondent's second motion for reconsideration as a petition for review.
• Saberon vs. Atty. Larong, 574 Phil. 510 (2008) — Followed for the principle that while lawyers are entitled to present their case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
• Uy vs. Atty. Depasucat, 455 Phil. 9 (2003) — Followed as precedent for the penalty of reprimand imposed on lawyers for misconduct involving the use of offensive and abusive language in pleadings.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs all members of the bar to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Applied to find that respondent breached his duty of courtesy toward the complainant.
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. Applied to hold respondent liable for his intemperate letter accusing the complainant of using influence without proof.
• Section 12, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs the procedure for review of IBP decisions in disbarment cases, providing that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days, and if denied, file a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. Applied to clarify that a second motion for reconsideration is not recognized.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.