Chua vs. Pascua

Common words such as duped, foolishness, and bungling are not per se abusive, offensive, or intemperate, and an administrative finding to that effect must be justified by context and supported by factual findings and evidence. Absent such justification under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, charges of intemperate language, misuse of legal processes, MCLE falsification, and encouraging suit cannot sustain suspension from the practice of law.

Dr. Louisito N. Chua and Atty. Oscar A. Pascua were opposing litigants in an ejectment suit filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, where Pascua appeared as co-plaintiff against Chua and his mother. The ejectment litigation proceeded through appeal to the Regional Trial Court, generating the pleadings and orders later cited as the basis for the ethics complaint. Understanding of the duty of courtesy under Section 20(f), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility frames the dispute.

Atty. Oscar A. Pascua was co-plaintiff in an ejectment suit filed against Dr. Louisito N. Chua and his mother in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After the MeTC dismissed the ejectment suit, Pascua and his co-plaintiff appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The RTC initially dismissed the appeal but, upon motion for reconsideration filed by Pascua and his co-plaintiff, reversed itself and rendered judgment in their favor.

According to Chua, Pascua did not furnish him and his mother a copy of that motion for reconsideration, appeared alone at its hearing to make oral arguments, and thereby obtained a favorable decision without their knowledge. After the adverse judgment, Chua and his mother moved for reconsideration, and Pascua submitted a Comment/Opposition and Omnibus Motion filed on September 17, 2010 concerning the Order dated July 16, 2010. Chua alleged that the pleading contained scurrilous statements damaging his reputation as a doctor and councilor, including that he, using undue influence as councilor, duped Ms. Yolanda Salindog to cause her to make a statement dated August 17, 2010, took advantage of her innocence and the trust given to him, acted with ignorance and abusive manner in boasting of victory, and displayed foolishness regarding service of the Order dated July 20, 2009. Chua further alleged that Pascua accused the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 36 of bungling the case, prompting the judge to voluntarily inhibit herself.

Chua additionally charged Pascua with mocking court procedures by alleging a demand letter to vacate dated April 5, 2006 and mailed April 20, 2006, when the date was allegedly superimposed from April 5, 2005 without proof of mailing; by attaching mismatched registry receipts to the motion for reconsideration filed July 31, 2008, specifically Registry Receipt No. 139883 and Registry Receipt No. 922640 both mailed July 31, 2008 at the Central Post Office but bearing non-consecutive numbers; and by insisting on ex parte presentation of photocopied exhibits at the September 26, 2008 hearing during the non-appearance of Chua's counsel despite objection. Chua pointed to varying dates of issuance of Pascua's MCLE certificate, omissions of the MCLE compliance number, and use of another lawyer's MCLE number, and charged Pascua with fomenting suits requiring clients to execute Deeds of Sale of Rights as attorney's fees and making himself co-plaintiff. Pascua, for his part, focused on Chua's alleged untruthful statements on ownership, asserted that acquiring rights from his client was a personal matter between them, denied foul language as filed without malice and in good faith under the circumstances, and claimed MCLE date errors were merely typographical. The Investigating Commissioner concluded Pascua had on several instances used offensive and intemperate language even if not material to the case and recommended six-month suspension, which the IBP Board adopted.

• Deprivation of Day in Court: Complainant argued that respondent, in filing the motion for reconsideration of the RTC dismissal, did not furnish a copy to complainant and his mother, employed a fraudulent scheme to prevent them from having their day in court, appeared alone at the hearing to orally argue, and thereby obtained a favorable decision without their knowledge.
• Foul and Insulting Language: Complainant argued that respondent used scurrilous, foul, and insulting words in his Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration and Omnibus Motion filed September 17, 2010 and in other RTC submissions, including that complainant duped Ms. Salindog, took advantage of her innocence, acted with ignorance and abusive manner, and displayed foolishness, and that respondent accused the RTC Branch 36 judge of bungling the case.
• Mockery and Fraudulent Use of Processes: Complainant argued that respondent mocked the court by superimposing the demand letter date from April 5, 2005 to April 5, 2006 without proof of mailing, by attaching different registry receipts to the July 31, 2008 motion for reconsideration with non-consecutive numbers 139883 and 922640, and by insisting on ex parte presentation of photocopied exhibits on September 26, 2008 despite objection.
• MCLE Irregularities: Complainant argued that respondent indicated different dates of issuance of his MCLE certificate in pleadings, at times omitted his MCLE compliance certificate number, and at times used another lawyer's MCLE compliance certificate number.
• Encouraging Suit and Acquiring Interest: Complainant argued that respondent fomented suits that would require his clients to execute Deeds of Sale of Rights as payment for attorney's fees and made himself co-plaintiff.

• Ownership and Personal Transaction: Respondent maintained that complainant made untruthful statements regarding ownership of the property subject of the litigation and asserted that acquiring rights over the property from the client was a personal matter between him and his client.
• Good Faith Pleading: Respondent denied using foul language, insisting that the statements were part of pleadings filed without malice but in good faith taking into consideration the facts under the circumstances.
• MCLE Typographical Error: Respondent claimed that errors in indicating the date of issuance of his MCLE compliance certificate number were merely typographical, not intentional.

• Intemperate and Offensive Language: Whether respondent's use of words and phrases like duped, to take advantage of the innocence of, his ignorance and abusive manner, foolishness, and bungling violated the duty to abstain from offensive personality and Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• MCLE Falsification and Misuse of Processes: Whether respondent's alleged use of a wrong or another lawyer's MCLE compliance certificate number and alleged abuse of legal processes and procedure were established to constitute falsehood under Rule 10.01, Canon 10.
• Sufficiency of IBP Findings and Penalty: Whether the IBP Board of Governors' adoption of the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation imposing six-month suspension was supported by facts, reasons, and evidence as required under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

• Intemperate and Offensive Language: No. The words complained of are of common usage and were not shown by context or justification to be excessive, intemperate, or offensive, leaving the IBP conclusion bereft of factual basis.
• MCLE Falsification and Misuse of Processes: No. No factual finding or sufficient evidence was adduced in the report and recommendation to establish MCLE falsification or abuse of legal processes and procedure.
• Sufficiency of IBP Findings and Penalty: No. The resolutions were reversed, the charges being unsupported by clearly stated facts and reasons, so absolution rather than suspension was warranted.

• Intemperate and Offensive Language: Every lawyer must act with courtesy and abstain from offensive personality unless required by the justice of the cause, reiterated by Rule 8.01, Canon 8, and adversarial zeal does not license offensive language. Because the Investigating Commissioner merely concluded that offensive language was used without explaining why duped, to take advantage of the innocence of, his ignorance and abusive manner, foolishness, and bungling were excessive in their specific context, and because such terms are of ordinary usage whose abrasiveness depends on context and the availability of synonyms does not make them intemperate, the conclusion was deemed a depreciating generalization without factual basis for review.
• MCLE Falsification and Misuse of Processes: Under Rule 10.01, Canon 10, use of a wrong or another lawyer's MCLE number, if established, could constitute falsehood or misleading the court by artifice. Because the report and recommendation contained no factual finding thereon and adverted to no evidence sufficiently showing abuse of legal processes and procedure, a finding against respondent was unwarranted, the silence being presumed to reflect absence of clear showing by complainant.
• Sufficiency of IBP Findings and Penalty: Section 12, Rule 139-B requires the IBP Board decision upon review to clearly and distinctly state the facts and reasons on which it is based, and a suspension resolution to set forth findings and recommendations for transmittal to the Supreme Court. Because those requisites were not met and the Investigating Commissioner omitted his duty to state factual findings, no alternative remained but to dismiss the charges and absolve respondent.

• Duty of Courtesy and Proper Language — A lawyer shall abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause, and under Rule 8.01, Canon 8 shall not in professional dealings use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. The duty was applied to test respondent's references to complainant and to the trial judge, but violation was not established for lack of contextual justification.
• Adversarial Zeal Does Not License Abuse in People vs. Santos Tradition as Restated in Sanchez vs. Aguilos — While the adversarial system necessitates strong language to advance a client's or personal cause, membership in a noble profession requires courage and zeal without offensive and abusive language, and pleadings must remain dignified to maintain the integrity of the profession. The principle framed the inquiry into whether respondent's language exceeded permissible strong advocacy.
• Prohibition Against Falsehood and Misleading the Court — Under Rule 10.01, Canon 10, a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. The rule was considered as the potential basis for liability for alleged MCLE falsification, but was not applied for want of factual finding and evidence.
• Requirement of Stated Facts and Reasons in Bar Discipline — Under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board upon the record and evidence with the investigator's report, and the Board's decision shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and reasons on which it is based. The requirement compelled dismissal where the report and resolutions lacked factual findings on intemperate language, MCLE violations, and abuse of processes.

• "abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged." — States the statutory duty of courtesy imposed on lawyers by the Rules of Court and applied as the standard for the language charges.
• "The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use strong language in the advancement of the interest of their clients." — Defines the latitude allowed for strong advocacy before imposing the countervailing limit of dignity and integrity of the profession.
• "However, as members of a noble profession, lawyers are always impressed with the duty to represent their clients' cause, or, as in this case, to represent a personal matter in court, with courage and zeal but that should not be used as license for the use of offensive and abusive language." — Articulates the controlling limit on zealous representation invoked to evaluate respondent's pleadings.
• "on several instances filed pleadings with the Court, using offensive and intemperate language against the parties as well as the court, even if the same is not material to the case." — Reproduces the Investigating Commissioner's conclusion that was rejected for failure to explain or justify why the specific words were offensive.

• Sanchez vs. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 — Cited as authority that adversarial necessity may require strong language but does not license offensive and abusive language, and that a lawyer's spoken or written language must remain dignified.

• Section 20(f), Rule 138, Rules of Court — Mandates lawyers to abstain from offensive personality and from advancing facts prejudicial to honor or reputation unless required by justice; applied as the baseline duty allegedly breached by respondent's characterizations of complainant and the judge.
• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Commands that a lawyer shall not in professional dealings use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper; applied to assess whether duped, foolishness, bungling, and related phrases violated professional courtesy.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor mislead the court by artifice; identified as the rule that alleged MCLE falsification would violate if factually established.
• Section 12, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Requires IBP investigation reports and Board decisions to clearly state facts, reasons, findings, and recommendations on the record and evidence; applied to invalidate the recommendation and resolutions for absence of factual findings and supporting evidence.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.