Noble III vs. Ailes

A lawyer's use of insulting, offensive, and disparaging language against a fellow lawyer — even in private communications to a relative who is the latter's client — constitutes a violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting administrative sanctions.

Complainant Maximino Noble III and respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes are both members of the Philippine bar. Noble served as counsel for Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr., who is Orlando's own brother, in a civil case for damages that Orlando had filed against Marcelo and other defendants before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The administrative complaint arose from Orlando's conduct toward Noble in the context of that representation, as well as from alleged deficiencies in Orlando's MCLE compliance disclosures.

On August 18, 2010, Atty. Orlando O. Ailes filed a complaint for damages against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr., and other defendants before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, docketed as Civil Case No. C-22601. Marcelo was represented in that case by complainant Maximino Noble III. In the complaint, Orlando indicated an IBP O.R. number reflecting payment of annual dues for 2009 and stated his MCLE Compliance No. II-0008689, issued on March 10, 2008. Noble later claimed that at the time of filing, Orlando's IBP O.R. number should have reflected payment for 2010, and that he should have completed his third MCLE compliance period, not merely the second.

Sometime in December 2011, Noble learned from Marcelo that the latter had filed a separate criminal case for grave threats and estafa against Orlando. When Noble was furnished a copy of that complaint, he discovered that Orlando had been sending text messages to Marcelo maligning Noble and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services. Among other things, Orlando texted: "Better dismiss [your] hi-track lawyer who will impoverish [you] with his unconscionable [professional] fee. Max Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared even once, that's why you lost in the pre-trial stage. get rid of [Noble] as [your] lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from [you]. daig mo nga mismong abogado mong polpol." Orlando also prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel, which stated that Noble "has never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a manner not befitting his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and, aside from charging enormous amount of professional fees and questionable expenses, said counsel's contracted services reached as far only in preparing and filing uncalled for motions to dismiss," as well as a Compromise Agreement, both of which he sent to Marcelo for signature.

On April 16, 2012, Noble filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Orlando before the IBP, charging him with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Bar Matter Nos. 850 and 1922, and praying for Orlando's disbarment and the award of damages. In his defense, Orlando denied the charges, claiming that his late MCLE submission was not a ground for disbarment and that the Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and Compromise Agreement were prepared upon Marcelo's request after Marcelo was declared in default in the civil case. He insisted that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages was used in a "brother-to-brother communication" and was uttered in good faith.

Meanwhile, the criminal case filed by Marcelo against Orlando was downgraded from grave threats and estafa to unjust vexation. On June 19, 2012, Orlando voluntarily entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of unjust vexation, consisting in his act of vexing or annoying Marcelo by "texting insulting, threatening and persuading words to drop his lawyer over a case."

• Violation of the CPR: Petitioner maintained that respondent violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by maligning petitioner to his own client through text messages, calling him incompetent and describing him with the word "polpol" (stupid), and by preparing a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and a Compromise Agreement designed to induce the client to dismiss petitioner.
• MCLE Non-Compliance: Petitioner claimed that respondent's IBP O.R. number in the complaint for damages should have reflected payment of IBP annual dues for 2010, not 2009, and that respondent should have already completed his third MCLE compliance period, not merely the second, alleging a violation of Bar Matter Nos. 850 and 1922.
• Disbarment and Damages: Petitioner prayed for the disbarment of respondent and the award of damages.

• Private and Good-Faith Communication: Respondent argued that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages was used in a "brother-to-brother communication" with Marcelo and was uttered in good faith, implying that the private nature of the communication and the familial relationship should shield him from administrative liability.
• MCLE Late Submission Not a Ground for Disbarment: Respondent contended that his late submission of the third MCLE compliance is not a ground for disbarment.
• Client-Requested Documents: Respondent claimed that the Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and the Compromise Agreement were all prepared upon the request of Marcelo when the latter was declared in default in the civil case.

• Professional Conduct Toward Fellow Lawyers: Whether respondent's private text messages to his brother, maligning and insulting petitioner (the brother's counsel) and urging termination of the latter's services, constitute a violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• MCLE Compliance Disclosure: Whether respondent's alleged failure to properly disclose his MCLE compliance information in the complaint for damages he filed constitutes a ground for disbarment.

• Professional Conduct Toward Fellow Lawyers: Yes. Respondent's text messages were clearly intended to malign and annoy petitioner, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid), and his insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate petitioner's services constitutes offensive conduct against a professional colleague in violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and Canon 8 of the CPR. The private nature of the communication does not exempt a lawyer from the duty of courtesy and fairness owed to fellow lawyers.
• MCLE Compliance Disclosure: No. Failure to disclose the required MCLE compliance information is not a ground for disbarment; at most, it is cause for the dismissal of the complaint and the expunction of the pleadings from the records, pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1922.

• Professional Conduct Toward Fellow Lawyers: The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer must at all times — whether in public or private life — act in a manner beyond reproach, especially when dealing with fellow lawyers. Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law and scandalous behavior in public or private life that discredits the profession. Canon 8 requires courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues, and Rule 8.01 prohibits the use of abusive, offensive, or improper language in professional dealings. Rule 8.02 prohibits encroachment upon the professional employment of another lawyer. The IBP treated the text messages as casual private communications between brothers, but the Court found their tenor could not be treated lightly: the messages were clearly intended to malign and annoy Noble, as shown by the use of "polpol" (stupid), and Orlando's insistence that Marcelo terminate Noble's services indicated offensive conduct against a colleague. Orlando's voluntary guilty plea to unjust vexation was, for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill of, insulted, and disrespected Noble — a departure from judicial decorum exposing him to administrative liability. It was inconsequential that the statements were relayed privately to his brother; as a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect, being fully aware that his words pertained to another lawyer to whom fairness and candor are owed. The Court relied on Buatis Jr. vs. People, which treated a lawyer's use of insulting words in a letter to a colleague as defamatory and injurious, and on Nunez vs. Astorga, which held that hurling insulting language at opposing counsel constitutes conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.
• MCLE Compliance Disclosure: The Court agreed with the IBP that failure to disclose the required MCLE compliance information in pleadings is not a ground for disbarment. Pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1922, the consequence of such failure is merely the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. No disbarment or suspension was warranted on this ground.

• Lawyer's Duty of Courtesy and Fairness in Both Public and Private Life — A lawyer must at all times, whether in public or private life, act in a manner beyond reproach, especially when dealing with fellow lawyers. The duty of courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues under Canon 8 of the CPR is not limited to public or professional settings; private communications that malign or insult a fellow lawyer can constitute a violation. In this case, the Court applied this doctrine to hold that Orlando's private text messages to his brother, which insulted and disparaged Noble, violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and Canon 8, notwithstanding the familial and private context of the communication.
• Prohibition Against Encroachment on Professional Employment — Under Rule 8.02, a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, though it remains the right of any lawyer to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. The Court found that Orlando's preparation of a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and his repeated insistence that Marcelo dismiss Noble constituted encroachment on Noble's professional employment.
• Use of Intemperate Language as Administrative Liability — Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum. Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subjecting a lawyer to disciplinary action. The Court applied this principle to Orlando's use of the word "polpol" (stupid) and his other disparaging remarks about Noble.
• MCLE Non-Disclosure as Ground for Dismissal, Not Disbarment — Failure to disclose the required MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption in pleadings, pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1922, is not a ground for disbarment. The consequence is merely the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

• "The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is a special privilege burdened with conditions before the legal profession, the courts, their clients and the society such that a lawyer has the duty to comport himself in a manner as to uphold integrity and promote the public's faith in the profession." — This passage establishes the foundational principle underlying the Court's reasoning: that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer's conduct in both public and private life must uphold the integrity of the profession.
• "Thus, in this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in private. As a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect in his words, being fully aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is owed." — This is the ratio decidendi on the central issue: the private nature of the communication does not exempt a lawyer from the duty of courtesy and fairness toward fellow lawyers, and the familial context does not diminish the administrative liability.
• "Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action." — This formulation articulates the canonical statement of the doctrine that offensive and abusive language toward fellow lawyers, even outside formal court proceedings, constitutes unprofessional conduct warranting disciplinary sanctions.

• Buatis Jr. vs. People, 520 Phil. 149 (2006) — Followed. The Court relied on this case as analogous authority for treating a lawyer's use of insulting words ("lousy," "inutile," "carabao English," "stupidity," "satan") in a letter to a colleague as defamatory and injurious, effectively maligning the colleague's integrity. The Court drew a parallel to Orlando's use of "polpol" (stupid) in his text messages.
• Nunez vs. Astorga, 492 Phil. 450 (2005) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that hurling insulting language to describe opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.
• Spouses Gibes vs. Deciembre, 496 Phil. 799 (2005) — Followed. Cited for the principle that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and that lawyers are expected to observe conduct of nobility and uprightness in both public and private life, and may be disciplined when their conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them.
• Barandon Jr. vs. Ferrer Sr., 630 Phil. 524 (2010) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.
• Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Mauricio Jr., 611 Phil. 1 (2009) — Followed. Cited for the principle that while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
• Asa vs. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9 (2006) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional conduct subjecting a lawyer to disciplinary action.

• Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession, whether in public or private life. The Court found Orlando violated this rule through his insulting text messages and his conviction for unjust vexation arising from the same conduct.
• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that 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 Orlando violated this canon in its entirety.
• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from using language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper in his professional dealings. Applied to Orlando's use of "polpol" (stupid) and other disparaging remarks about Noble.
• Rule 8.02, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from directly or indirectly encroaching upon the professional employment of another lawyer, while preserving the right to give proper advice to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Applied to Orlando's preparation of a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel and his insistence that Marcelo dismiss Noble.
• Bar Matter No. 1922 — Requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. The Court held that failure to disclose this information is not a ground for disbarment but merely causes the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.