Ng vs. Alar

A lawyer remains bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility even when addressing a non-judicial body such as the NLRC, and the use of abusive, offensive, or scandalous language in pleadings violates Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants a proportionate disciplinary penalty.

Johnny Ng was one of the respondents in a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission, docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 040273-04, while Atty. Benjamin C. Alar was counsel for the complainants in that case. The Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 8 and 11, supplies the disciplinary standards for lawyers' conduct toward colleagues and tribunals, and the NLRC Rules of Procedure govern practice before the labor tribunal. The dispute implicated whether those standards apply to a lawyer appearing before the NLRC, which is not a court, and whether abusive language in a pleading before it is actionable.

Johnny Ng was one of the respondents in a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission, docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 040273-04, while Atty. Benjamin C. Alar was counsel for the complainants in that case. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC rendered a Decision affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision. Alar then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI).

The MRMI contained the language that became the subject of the administrative complaint. Alar wrote that the NLRC decision was "merely copied from the pleadings of respondents-appellees with very slight modifications" and suggested that the actual writer was not connected with the NLRC First Division. He questioned whether the NLRC's ruling was "grave abuse of discretion" or "ignominious ignorance of the law," said the commissioners "lost their ability to see these glaring facts," and accused them of lacking honesty. He stated that separation pay should be one month per year of service "and all of it to the affected workers – not to some people in the NLRC in part." He called the commissioners "irrelevant to real life" and said that "honesty on the part of the Commissioners concerned is what is lacking, not the evidence." He wrote that if Labor Arbiter Santos was "cross-eyed" in his findings, the commissioners were "doubly so – and with malice thrown in." He said the Labor Arbiter and commissioners knew "deep in their small hearts" that there was no strike and had to "invent that basis." He accused Commissioner Dinopol of believing a myth, of having "impaired vision" that "cannot be trusted," and of enshrining a "Special Dinopol Rule." He said the evidence was "invisible to the impaired sight of Commissioner Dinopol." He accused Commissioner Dinopol of showing "great and irreparable impartiality, grave abuse of discretion and ignorance of the law," called him "a shame to the NLRC," and said Commissioner Go and Chairman Señeres were "just as guilty" by negligence. He also asked that Commissioner Dinopol be disallowed from handling the case and proposed that Chairman Señeres appoint two other commissioners from another division.

On February 15, 2005, Ng filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Alar before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. In his Answer with Counter-Complaint dated April 6, 2005, Alar contended that the complaint was intended to harass him and to influence the result of the cases between Ng and the workers pending in different fora. He argued that the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility applied only suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure had no provision on disciplinary matters; that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provided adequate sanctions; that the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC because it is not a court; that labor arbiters and NLRC commissioners are not judges or justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct did not apply to them; and that labor lawyers honestly and conscientiously practicing before the NLRC and paid on a contingent basis were entitled to some latitude of righteous anger when they believed they were cheated by corruption and collusion.

Attached to Alar's counter-complaint was an affidavit of union president Marilyn Batan. Batan alleged that Attys. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Elvin Michael Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in several instances: while the labor case was pending before the NLRC, they filed a new case against the laborers in the Office of the City Engineer of Quezon City to demolish the workers' tent, thereby splitting jurisdiction between the NLRC and the City Engineer's Office in violation of Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 13.03; although Ng signed the disbarment complaint against Alar, Paras and Cruz's office instigated the complaint in violation of Canon 8; Ng's company did not pay income tax for the year 2000 allegedly for non-operation due to fire, and Paras and Cruz consented to this act in violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.02; and when the case started there were more or less 100 complainants, but due to the acts of the employer and Paras and Cruz, the number was reduced to almost half in violation of Canon 19, Rules 19-01, 19-02, and 19-03.

In their Answer to the Counter-Complaint dated April 14, 2005, Paras and Cruz denied filing multiple actions arising from the same cause of action or interfering in the normal course of judicial proceedings. They stated that the relief sought before the City Engineer's Office had nothing to do with the NLRC case; that the demolition of nuisance and illegal structures was a cause of action completely irrelevant and unrelated to the labor cases; that the City Engineer's Office was requested to investigate nuisance structures outside the employer's property, consisting of shanties, tents, banners, and other paraphernalia that hampered free ingress to and egress from the employer's property and presented hazards; that the Office found the structures violative of pertinent DPWH and MMDA ordinances; and that the pendency of the labor case was irrelevant because a strike, legal or not, did not validate or justify illegal nuisance structures. They also denied instigating the disbarment complaint, saying they merely instructed their client on how to file it after being served a copy of the derogatory MRMI; stated that their engagement was only for labor and litigation cases and that they were never consulted on or privy to their client's tax concerns; and explained that the reduction in the number of complainants was due to amicable settlements reached with most of them.

The IBP assigned the case to Commissioner Patrick M. Velez. The Investigating Commissioner found Alar guilty of using improper and abusive language and recommended that he be suspended for not less than three months with a stern warning, while finding no actionable misconduct against Paras and Cruz and recommending dismissal of the counter-complaint. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report with modification, reprimanding Alar with a stern warning and dismissing the counter-complaint for lack of merit.

• Harassment and Influence: Respondent Alar contended that the complaint was intended to harass him and to influence the result of the cases between complainant and the workers pending in different fora.
• Suppletory Application of the Rules: Respondent Alar argued that the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility applied only suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure had no provision on disciplinary matters, and that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provided adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers and litigants.
• Non-Applicability of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Respondent Alar maintained that the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to lawyers practicing at the NLRC because the NLRC is not a court.
• Non-Applicability of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Respondent Alar argued that labor arbiters and NLRC commissioners are not judges or justices and are not part of the judiciary, so the Code of Judicial Conduct did not apply to them.
• Latitude of Righteous Anger: Respondent Alar argued that labor lawyers honestly and conscientiously practicing before the NLRC and paid on a contingent basis were entitled to some latitude of righteous anger when they were cheated by corruption and collusion.
• Counter-Respondents Paras and Cruz: Attys. Paras and Cruz countered that they did not file multiple actions or interfere in judicial proceedings; that the City Engineer's Office case concerned nuisance structures unrelated to the NLRC case; that they did not instigate the disbarment complaint but merely instructed their client after receiving the derogatory MRMI; that they were not engaged for tax matters and never advised on tax concerns; and that the reduction in complainants resulted from amicable settlements.

• Applicability of the Code of Professional Responsibility Before the NLRC: Whether a lawyer appearing before the NLRC is bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility despite the NLRC not being a court and its commissioners not being judges or justices.
• Improper Language in Pleadings: Whether Atty. Benjamin C. Alar's Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty of reprimand with stern warning imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is proportionate to Atty. Alar's violation.
• Counter-Complaint Against Attys. Paras and Cruz: Whether Attys. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Elvin Michael Cruz committed actionable misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.

• Applicability of the Code of Professional Responsibility Before the NLRC: Yes. A lawyer remains a member of the Bar and an oath-bound servant of the law even when addressing the NLRC; the NLRC's non-judicial character does not exempt him from the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Improper Language in Pleadings: Yes. The MRMI contained insults and diatribes attacking the NLRC's moral and intellectual integrity, violating Canons 8 and 11 and Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04.
• Propriety of Penalty: No. Reprimand with stern warning was not proportionate; a fine of ₱5,000.00 with a stern warning was imposed.
• Counter-Complaint Against Attys. Paras and Cruz: No. No actionable misconduct was shown; the counter-complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.

• Applicability of the Code of Professional Responsibility Before the NLRC: The Code of Professional Responsibility binds lawyers as members of the Bar regardless of the forum. The respondent's assertion that the NLRC is not a court, its commissioners are not judges or justices, and the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply was unavailing. In Lubiano vs. Gordolla, the Court held that a lawyer addressing the NLRC remains a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice, and whose conduct must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The argument that labor practitioners are entitled to a latitude of righteous anger was also rejected; it does not deter the Court from exercising supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail to live up to the standard expected of Bar members. Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility applied to Alar's MRMI.
• Improper Language in Pleadings: Canons 8 and 11 and Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 mandate courtesy, fairness, candor, respect for courts and judicial officers, and abstention from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior, and from attributing to a judge motives unsupported by the record. The MRMI contained insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety, and lack of diligence. The language was improper and offensive and admitted no justification. In Lacurom vs. Jacoba, while a lawyer may criticize courts and judges in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels, the language must always be dignified and respectful; unnecessary language is proscribed. Uy vs. Depasucat held that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts. Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer admonished and punished lawyers for disrespectful, irreverent, acrimonious, or defamatory statements, because such unnecessary language jeopardizes esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, and undermines judicial power. The MRMI's countless insults and diatribes did not measure up to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. Thus, Alar violated Canons 8 and 11.
• Propriety of Penalty: The IBP Board of Governors imposed reprimand with stern warning. The findings were adopted, but the penalty was not proportionate to the violation. The actions eroded the public's perception of the legal profession. A stiffer penalty of fine in the amount of ₱5,000.00 was imposed, with stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
• Counter-Complaint Against Attys. Paras and Cruz: The Court found no reason to disturb the Investigating Commissioner's findings and recommendation, as approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Batan failed to submit a position paper to substantiate the claims despite sufficient opportunity. The alleged case with the Office of the City Engineer involved a different cause of action, unrelated to the NLRC case; the decision was made by the city engineer, and the remedy was to question that decision, not bring it to the Commission, which had no jurisdiction over it. Parties are not prohibited from availing themselves of remedies available in law, and no abuse was shown. The attorney's duty as an officer of the court includes defending a judge from unfounded criticism or groundless personal attack. Whether the disbarment complaint was filed by Ng or by his lawyers was not of great import; what mattered was the contents and sufficiency of the complaint. The tax case was a different matter; since Paras and Cruz stated they were not engaged as counsel for their client's tax problems, they could not be held accountable, and there was no showing they were responsible. The reduction of complainants from about 100 to less than half was not itself actionable misconduct; lawyers are duty-bound to foster amicable settlement, and there was nothing showing the compromise agreements and waivers were unfair. Thus, no actionable misconduct was found against Paras and Cruz, and the counter-complaint was properly dismissed for absolute lack of merit.

• Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers before the NLRC — A lawyer's membership in the Bar and duty to the administration of justice are not diminished by appearing before a non-judicial body. The NLRC not being a court and its commissioners not being judges or justices does not exempt a lawyer from the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court applied this by rejecting Alar's argument and holding him bound by Canons 8 and 11.
• Proscription on abusive, offensive, or scandalous language — A lawyer may criticize courts and judges in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels, but the language must always be dignified and respectful. Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04 prohibit abusive, offensive, scandalous, or menacing language and the attribution of unsupported motives to judges. The Court applied this to the MRMI's insults and diatribes against the NLRC.
• No latitude of righteous anger — Labor practitioners are not entitled to a latitude of righteous anger; the Court retains supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail to live up to the standard expected of Bar members. Applied to reject Alar's justification.
• Penalty must be proportionate — A reprimand with stern warning was not proportionate to the violation; a fine of ₱5,000.00 with stern warning was imposed. The Court considered that the actions eroded the public's perception of the legal profession.
• Duty to defend judges from unfounded criticism — An attorney, as an officer of the court, has a duty to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or groundless personal attack, to discourage others from doing so, and to come to the judge's defense. This was cited in the disposition of the counter-complaint.
• Compromise and amicable settlement — Lawyers are duty-bound to foster amicable settlement; litigation is not encouraged because it saves expenses and helps unclog dockets. A reduction in the number of complainants due to compromise is not actionable misconduct absent a showing that the compromise was unfair. Applied to dismiss the counter-complaint.

• "The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence. Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit any justification." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the finding that Atty. Alar violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• "A lawyer's language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession." — This is the canonical formulation of the standard of language required of lawyers, cited by the Court in rejecting Alar's abusive pleadings.
• "Respondent's assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the judiciary; and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to them, is unavailing." — This passage rejects the argument that the Code of Professional Responsibility and judicial conduct standards do not reach lawyers appearing before the NLRC.
• "However, the penalty of reprimand with stern warning imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is not proportionate to respondent’s violation of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, he deserves a stiffer penalty of fine in the amount of ₱5,000.00." — This passage explains the Court's modification of the IBP penalty from reprimand to a fine.

• Lacurom vs. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, May 10, 2006 — Cited for the rule that a lawyer has the right to criticize courts and judges in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels, but the language must always be dignified and respectful; unnecessary language is proscribed.
• Uy vs. Depasucat, 455 Phil. 9 (2003) — Cited for the holding that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts.
• Lubiano vs. Gordolla, 201 Phil. 47 (1982) — Cited for the holding that a lawyer addressing the NLRC remains a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.
• Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967, 20 SCRA 441 — Cited for the rule that lawyers may be admonished and punished for disrespectful, irreverent, acrimonious, or defamatory statements, because unnecessary language jeopardizes esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, and undermines judicial power.
• Hueysuwan-Florido vs. Florido, A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 132 — Cited for the standard that a lawyer's language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The Court found Alar's MRMI violated this canon.
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. The Court applied this to Alar's insults and diatribes against the NLRC.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. The Court found Alar violated this canon.
• Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. The Court applied this to the MRMI's offensive language.
• Rule 11.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. The Court applied this to Alar's accusations against the NLRC commissioners.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairperson), Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario concurred.