Roque, Jr. vs. Balbin

A lawyer who employs harassing and intimidating tactics against opposing counsel — including threatening to file baseless administrative and criminal complaints to strong-arm the latter into submission — violates Canon 8, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and where the lawyer also repeatedly defies the Court's directives during the administrative proceedings, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years is warranted.

Complainant Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. and respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin were opposing counsel in Civil Case No. 2004-307, entitled Felmailem, Inc. vs. Felma Mailem, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 77. Complainant represented the plaintiff, while respondent represented the defendant. The disciplinary proceeding arose from respondent's conduct toward complainant after the latter secured a favorable judgment, and from respondent's subsequent disregard of the Supreme Court's directives in the administrative case itself.

Complainant Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. served as plaintiff's counsel in Felmailem, Inc. vs. Felma Mailem, docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-307 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 77. Respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin appeared as counsel for the defendant. Complainant secured a favorable judgment for his client, penned by Judge Donato H. De Castro on November 9, 2005.

Shortly after that judgment was rendered, respondent — acting as counsel for the defendant on appeal — began intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously threatening complainant in an effort to force the withdrawal of the case filed by complainant's client. According to complainant, respondent made repeated telephone calls and sent text messages and e-mails not only to him but also to his friends and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and criminal suits against him. Exploiting complainant's "high profile" stature, respondent further threatened to publicize such suits to besmirch and destroy complainant's name and reputation.

Complainant filed a verified complaint-affidavit dated March 1, 2006 before the Supreme Court seeking disciplinary action. Respondent initially moved for an extension of time to file his comment, which the Court granted, but respondent never filed the comment despite multiple notices. The Court repeatedly fined respondent and issued orders for his arrest, including a Warrant of Arrest dated April 13, 2011 and an Alias Order of Arrest and Commitment dated January 23, 2013; these orders remained unserved. The Court eventually dispensed with respondent's comment and forwarded the records to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that instead of availing of procedural remedies to assail the adverse MeTC ruling, respondent resorted to underhanded tactics directed at the opposing counsel through various modes of harassment and intimidation, constituting a gross violation of Canon 8 of the CPR. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted in toto. The Supreme Court thereafter increased the penalty to two years, taking into account respondent's additional violations for defying the Court's directives during the administrative proceedings.

• Unprofessional Conduct and Harassment: Complainant maintained that respondent, as opposing counsel, engaged in intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously threatening conduct designed to force the withdrawal of complainant's client's case, in violation of professional ethical standards.
• Threat of Baseless Suits and Publicity: Complainant argued that respondent's threats to file disbarment and criminal suits — and to publicize them given complainant's "high profile" stature — were calculated to besmirch and destroy complainant's name and reputation, constituting unprofessional conduct warranting disciplinary action.

• Administrative Liability for Harassment of Opposing Counsel: Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and threatening complainant, the opposing counsel, in connection with the underlying civil case.
• Administrative Liability for Defiance of Court Directives: Whether respondent's failure to file his comment despite obtaining an extension, and his disregard of multiple Court directives including arrest orders, constitute additional violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the IBP's recommended penalty of one-year suspension is appropriate or should be increased.

• Administrative Liability for Harassment of Opposing Counsel: Yes. Respondent's acts of repeatedly intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing complainant with purported administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial media exposures violated Canon 8, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the CPR, as well as the Lawyer's Oath.
• Administrative Liability for Defiance of Court Directives: Yes. Respondent's failure to file his comment after obtaining an extension, and his disregard of numerous Court directives, violated Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR.
• Proper Penalty: Two years. The Court increased the IBP's recommended one-year suspension to two years, consistent with precedent imposing the same penalty for similar or comparable misconduct.

• Administrative Liability for Harassment of Opposing Counsel: Lawyers are licensed officers of the court mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession and to conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Canon 8 of the CPR commands that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Instead of availing of remedies to contest the ruling adverse to his client, respondent resorted to personal attacks against the opposing counsel through repeated intimidation, harassment, and blackmail, threatening baseless administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial media exposure. These acts demonstrated a misuse of legal processes and a lack of respect toward a colleague. Moreover, threatening to file baseless complaints to strong-arm opposing counsel and his client into submission contravened the Lawyer's Oath — which exhorts that a lawyer shall not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit — and violated Canon 19 and Rule 19.01, which require that a lawyer employ only fair and honest means and not threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage. The fact that respondent failed to cow complainant into submission did not mitigate liability, as it revealed respondent's distastefully disturbing moral character.

• Administrative Liability for Defiance of Court Directives: Respondent initially moved for an extension of time to file his comment but did not file the same, prompting the Court to repeatedly fine him and order his arrest. Such audacity caused undue delay in the resolution of the administrative case and violated Canon 11 (respect due to courts and judicial officers), Canon 12 (duty to assist in speedy and efficient administration of justice), Rule 12.03 (prohibition against letting the period lapse without filing after obtaining an extension), and Rule 12.04 (prohibition against unduly delaying a case or misusing Court processes). The Court's orders are not mere requests; obstinate refusal or failure to comply betrays a recalcitrant flaw in the lawyer's character and underscores disrespect for lawful orders deserving of reproof.

• Proper Penalty: In Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr., a lawyer who filed a baseless civil suit against opposing counsel to obtain leverage was suspended for two years. In Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Paguinto, the erring lawyer was similarly suspended for two years for causing the filing of baseless complaints against opposing counsel and for failing to file a comment in the administrative case despite obtaining an extension. Given the parallel circumstances — personal attacks against opposing counsel to gain leverage, compounded by defiance of the Court's directives — the Court found it appropriate to increase the penalty from the IBP's recommended one year to two years' suspension.

• Canon 8 — Courtesy and Fairness Toward Professional Colleagues — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Lawyers must treat opposing counsels with courtesy, dignity, and civility; mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations, and offensive behavior among lawyers constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action. The Court applied this Canon to respondent's repeated intimidation, harassment, and blackmail of complainant through telephone calls, text messages, and e-mails.

• Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 — Zeal Within the Bounds of the Law — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law; a lawyer's duty is to the administration of justice, not to the client. Rule 19.01 commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives and shall not threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage. A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases. Respondent violated this Rule by threatening complainant with baseless administrative and criminal complaints to strong-arm him and his client into submission.

• Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 — Respect for Courts and Duty to Assist in Administration of Justice — A lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers (Canon 11) and shall exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice (Canon 12). Rule 12.03 prohibits a lawyer from letting the period lapse without filing pleadings after obtaining an extension. Rule 12.04 prohibits a lawyer from unduly delaying a case, impeding execution of judgment, or misusing Court processes. Respondent violated all four provisions by obtaining an extension to file his comment, never filing it, and ignoring numerous Court directives including arrest orders.

• "Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations[,] and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action." — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for Canon 8, establishing that personal animosity between clients must not infect professional relations between counsel, and that offensive behavior among lawyers is disciplinable.

• "a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client." — This formulation, quoted from Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Arellano, defines the prohibition under Rule 19.01 against using threatened baseless charges as a tool for leverage, which is the core of respondent's violation.

• "The orders of the Court are not to be construed as a mere request, nor should they be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively; and the obstinate refusal or failure to comply therewith not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in the lawyer's character, but also underscores his disrespect to the lawful orders of the Court which is only too deserving of reproof." — This passage establishes the principle that Court directives in administrative proceedings are mandatory and that defiance thereof is itself an ethical violation warranting discipline.

• Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99 (2003) — Controlling precedent on penalty. A lawyer who filed a baseless civil suit against opposing counsel to obtain leverage in an estafa case was suspended for two years. The Court relied on this case to justify increasing the IBP's recommended penalty to two years.
• Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Paguinto, 629 Phil. 230 (2010) — Controlling precedent on penalty, closely analogous. The erring lawyer was suspended for two years for causing the filing of baseless complaints against opposing counsel and for failing to file a comment in the administrative case despite obtaining an extension. The Court found the parallel circumstances warranted the same penalty.
• Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Arellano, 789 Phil. 600 (2016) — Followed for the formulation of Canon 19 and Rule 19.01, specifically the rule that a lawyer should not file or threaten to file unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage.
• Narido vs. Linsangan, 157 Phil. 87 (1974) — Cited for the principle that lawyers should treat opposing counsels with courtesy, dignity, and civility, and that offensive behavior among lawyers constitutes unprofessional conduct.
• Aguinaldo vs. Aguinaldo, 146 Phil. 726 (1970) — Cited for the principle that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice according to law, not to harass the parties.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." Applied to respondent's repeated intimidation, harassment, and blackmail of complainant through various modes of communication.
• 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." Applied to respondent's disregard of the Court's orders and directives during the administrative proceedings.
• Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Applied to respondent's conduct causing undue delay in the resolution of the administrative case.
• Rule 12.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so." Applied to respondent's obtaining an extension but never filing his comment.
• Rule 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." Applied to respondent's misuse of Court processes and delay of the administrative case.
• Canon 19, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law." Applied to respondent's conduct in threatening baseless suits against opposing counsel.
• Rule 19.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding." Applied to respondent's threats to file baseless administrative and criminal complaints to strong-arm complainant into submission.
• Lawyer's Oath — Exhorts that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same." Applied to respondent's threats of baseless suits against complainant.

Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concurred. Carandang, J., was on leave.