Perito vs. Baterina

A lawyer’s resort to all available legal remedies — including a petition for certiorari that imputes grave abuse of discretion to a judge — and the filing of a disbarment countersuit against opposing counsel do not constitute grounds for disbarment when undertaken in good faith to advance a client’s cause and within the bounds of the law. Absent clear proof of ill will, gross misconduct, or violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, such conduct is consistent with the duties of fidelity and zealous representation under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Fernando P. Perito acted as counsel for the accused Josephine and Jason Bracamonte in a kidnapping case pending before Branch 169 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. Respondents Attys. Bertrand A. Baterina and Ryan R. Besid entered their appearance as private prosecutors. After the Department of Justice dismissed the criminal charge and the trial court provisionally dismissed the case, the respondent lawyers filed motions for reconsideration, a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, and ultimately a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, naming the victim’s mother as petitioner. During the same period, the Bracamontes filed a disbarment complaint against Attys. Baterina and Besid, which was dismissed. Suspecting that Atty. Perito instigated that complaint, Atty. Baterina filed a countersuit for disbarment against Atty. Perito, a case likewise dismissed. The present disbarment petition arose from this web of animosity.

• The Underlying Kidnapping Case: Atty. Perito represented the accused Josephine and Jason Bracamonte in a kidnapping case filed before the RTC of Malabon. The private complainant was initially Antonio Galian, later substituted by Geri Villa. Respondents Attys. Baterina and Besid appeared as private prosecutors, having replaced a prior counsel.

• DOJ Dismissal and RTC Orders: During reinvestigation, the DOJ Investigating Panel issued a Resolution dated August 1, 2007 dismissing the charge against the Bracamontes. Attys. Baterina and Besid moved for reconsideration; the DOJ denied the motion in a Resolution dated September 27, 2007. Atty. Besid then filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, the RTC issued an Order on September 17, 2007 provisionally dismissing the case due to the DOJ resolution and the private complainant’s repeated non-appearance, but without prejudice to any pending motion for reconsideration. Attys. Baterina and Besid moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on December 17, 2007 due to lack of conformity of the public prosecutor.

• Respondents’ Recourses: Following the denial, Attys. Baterina and Besid filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, naming Dulce Hernandez—mother of the alleged minor victim—as petitioner. They questioned the RTC’s orders and imputed grave abuse of discretion to the presiding judge.

• Prior Disbarment Cases: The Bracamontes filed a disbarment complaint against Attys. Baterina and Besid, docketed as A.C. No. 7929. That complaint was subsequently dismissed and declared closed and terminated. Suspecting that Atty. Perito was behind the Bracamontes’ suit, Atty. Baterina filed a countersuit for disbarment against Atty. Perito, docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2468, with respondents Attys. Tiblani and Pammit as his counsel. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed CBD Case No. 09-2468 for lack of merit.

• The Present Complaint: Atty. Perito charged respondents with (a) endlessly persecuting the Bracamontes by pursuing a dismissed case; (b) misrepresentation because Dulce was not an original complainant and could not represent the victim who had already reached majority; (c) demeanor unbecoming of lawyers by accusing Atty. Perito of delaying the proceedings and using dirty tactics; (d) failure to uphold the dignity of the court by imputing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC judge; and (e) conspiracy among all respondents in filing a baseless disbarment countercharge.

• Harassment Through Vexatious Remedies: Atty. Perito maintained that Attys. Baterina and Besid pursued a losing and already dismissed case, endlessly persecuting his clients through successive motions and petitions that served only to harass.

• Misrepresentation: Atty. Perito argued that the certiorari petition before the CA was improperly filed in the name of Dulce Hernandez, who was never an original complainant and had no standing to represent the alleged victim who had reached the age of majority.

• Unbecoming Conduct and Bad Faith Accusations: Atty. Perito claimed that respondents accused him of being the cause of the prolonged detention of the accused, delaying proceedings, adopting a scheme of making manifestations on unscheduled days, and depriving the private complainant of a day in court—charges that demonstrated a lack of professional courtesy.

• Undermining Judicial Authority: Atty. Perito asserted that respondents violated the duty to respect the courts by imputing to the presiding judge grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, alleging that the judge succumbed to pressure and used dirty and coercive tactics to obtain a favorable judgment.

• Conspiracy in Filing Baseless Disbarment Complaint: Atty. Perito impleaded Attys. Tiblani and Pammit, alleging they conspired with Attys. Baterina and Besid in filing the disbarment countercharge against him, which he characterized as groundless and retaliatory.

• Lawful Exercise of Legal Remedies: Respondents countered that the petition for review and petition for certiorari were remedies available as a matter of law to protect their client’s interest, and resorting to them cannot be a ground for disbarment. They contended that failing to pursue those remedies would have rendered them remiss in their duties.

• Proper Party and Distinct Cause of Action: Respondents argued that Dulce could properly file the certiorari petition because the complainant was a minor when the felony was committed. They further explained that a petition for certiorari is an entirely different remedy with a new cause of action, so the criminal case was not affected even if Dulce was a stranger to the DOJ and RTC proceedings.

• Necessity of Imputing Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondents averred that alleging grave abuse of discretion was necessary to substantiate a certiorari petition under Rule 65 and that such an imputation, when supported by facts and logic, cannot be a ground for disbarment.

• Legitimate Representation in Disbarment Countersuit: Attys. Tiblani and Pammit maintained that their act of filing a disbarment case on behalf of Atty. Baterina against Atty. Perito was a professional service in defense of a client and did not constitute misconduct.

• Pursuit of Available Remedies: Whether Attys. Baterina and Besid violated Rule 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by continuously filing motions and a petition for certiorari after the dismissal of the kidnapping case.

• Misrepresentation in Certiorari Petition: Whether the filing of a certiorari petition in the name of Dulce Hernandez, who was not the original complainant, constituted actionable misrepresentation under the CPR.

• Imputation of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether respondents’ allegation that the trial judge acted with grave abuse of discretion violated Canon 11 (Rule 11.03 or 11.04) requiring respect for courts and judicial officers.

• Liability for Filing Disbarment Countersuit: Whether Attys. Tiblani and Pammit, by filing and handling the disbarment countersuit against Atty. Perito on behalf of Atty. Baterina, engaged in harassment or otherwise violated Rule 1.03 and Canon 8 of the CPR.

• Pursuit of Available Remedies: The remedies invoked—motion for reconsideration, petition for review before the Secretary of Justice, and petition for certiorari—were sanctioned by applicable rules, including DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal) and the Rules of Court, and were intended solely to advance the client’s interest in the kidnapping case. Their pursuit fell squarely within the duty of fidelity and zealous representation mandated by Canons 17 and 19 of the CPR. No violation of Rule 1.03, Canon 1, or Rule 10.03, Canon 10 was established.

• Misrepresentation in Certiorari Petition: The petition for certiorari was treated as a distinct remedy with its own cause of action, and filing it on behalf of the victim’s mother was permissible under the circumstances. No misrepresentation or improper conduct was proven.

• Imputation of Grave Abuse of Discretion: The allegation that the RTC judge acted with grave abuse of discretion was a necessary averment to support a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The record did not show that the imputation was scandalous, offensive, or made without factual basis; consequently, no violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03 occurred.

• Liability for Filing Disbarment Countersuit: Attys. Tiblani and Pammit were merely representing Atty. Baterina and protecting his interests in the disbarment proceedings. There was no proof that they were motivated by ill will, and thus no breach of Rule 1.03 or Canon 8 was found. A lawyer’s obligation to present every remedy authorized by law in support of a client’s cause includes the filing of a legitimate disbarment complaint, regardless of the lawyer’s personal views.

Overall, Atty. Perito failed to present substantial evidence that respondents committed any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the Lawyer’s Oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The complaint was characterized as evidence of mutual frustration rather than of professional transgression.

• Zealous Representation Within Bounds of Law — A lawyer owes fidelity to the client’s cause and must present every remedy or defense authorized by law, regardless of personal views. Resort to proper procedural remedies, including a petition for certiorari that necessarily imputes grave abuse of discretion to a judge, does not constitute misconduct when the imputation is supported by facts and logic and the pleading is filed in good faith. The duty to maintain respect for courts does not bar a lawyer from questioning a judicial order through available legal processes.

• Disbarment as a Penalty of Last Resort — The power to disbar is exercised with great caution. As the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Mere suspicion, mutual animosity between opposing counsel, or pursuit of losing causes does not suffice.

• “[A] lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He should present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his client’s cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public.” — The passage, drawn from Legarda v. Court of Appeals, was relied upon to underscore that respondents’ persistence in availing of legal remedies was a fulfillment of their professional duty, not harassment.

• “As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.” — This standard, cited from Re: SC Decision dated May 20, 2008 v. Atty. Pactolin, framed the Court’s threshold and justified dismissal of the complaint where the evidence fell short.

• Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 272-A Phil. 394, 403-404 (1991) — Cited as authority for the principle that a lawyer must exert utmost learning and ability and present every authorized remedy for the client, regardless of personal views. The Court relied on this to hold that respondents’ filings were consistent with their fiduciary obligations.

• Re: SC Decision dated May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court v. Atty. Pactolin, 686 Phil. 351, 355 (2012) — Invoked to reiterate the restrictive standard for disbarment, emphasizing that the penalty is reserved for clear and imperative cases of misconduct.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment (deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, willful disobedience of a lawful court order, or corruptly appearing without authority). None of the respondents’ actions fell within these grounds.

• Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The respondents’ actions did not amount to harassment; the Court instead noted that Atty. Perito’s own pleadings contained intemperate language.

• Canon 11, Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. The imputation of grave abuse of discretion in a certiorari petition, when factually grounded, is not scandalous or offensive within the meaning of this rule.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. The respondents’ pursuit of all available remedies was precisely in fidelity to their client’s cause.

• Canon 19, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. The actions taken by respondents fell within those bounds.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.