Tolentino vs. Millado

A lawyer who attributes to a judge motives of bias and lack of expertise not supported by the record violates Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action, even where the complaint was originally framed under a different canon.

Complainant Rolando Tolentino and Henry A. Manalo were rival candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City, in the October 28, 2013 barangay elections. Respondents Atty. Rodil L. Millado and Atty. Francisco B. Sibayan served as counsel for Manalo in subsequent election proceedings before the MTCC and the COMELEC. The disbarment complaint arose from allegations that respondents made unethical misrepresentations in pleadings filed before the COMELEC, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the October 28, 2013 barangay elections, Tolentino and Manalo both ran for Punong Barangay of Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City. Manalo was proclaimed winner with 441 votes, while Tolentino garnered 440. Tolentino thereafter filed an election protest dated October 30, 2013 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Tarlac City, docketed as Election Case No. 03-2013 and raffled to Branch 1 presided by Judge Ryan Scott F. Robiños.

After revision of ballots and reception of evidence, Judge Robiños rendered a Decision on November 26, 2014 declaring Tolentino the winner with 438 votes against Manalo's 436. Manalo promptly filed an ordinary appeal before the COMELEC. Tolentino, for his part, filed a motion for execution pending appeal before the MTCC, which was granted through a Special Order dated December 16, 2014. Manalo, represented by Atty. Millado, filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari dated January 8, 2015 to challenge the Special Order. On January 26, 2015, Atty. Sibayan, as collaborating counsel, filed before the COMELEC an Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Relief and/or Status Quo Ante Order with Entry of Appearance. On January 30, 2015, the COMELEC First Division issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Judge Robiños from implementing the Special Order, and likewise issued a Status Quo Ante Order directing the turnover of the post to Manalo.

In February 2015, Tolentino filed the instant disbarment complaint against both respondents, alleging three acts of unethical misrepresentation in violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. First, Tolentino alleged that Atty. Millado improperly misrepresented in the Petition for Certiorari the ruling in Fermo vs. COMELEC to the effect that "shortness of the remaining term of office and posting of bond are not good reasons for execution of a judgment pending appeal." Second, Tolentino alleged that Atty. Sibayan wrote a misleading statement in his Manifestation/Motion, stating that the protest case was initiated on November 16, 2013 and decided on May 5, 2014, when the MTCC had in fact rendered its Decision on November 26, 2014. Third, Tolentino claimed that both respondents falsely alleged that the MTCC had baselessly disregarded the conclusions of the PNP Crime Laboratory regarding dissimilarities in the handwritings found in some ballots, resulting in prejudice against Manalo. Tolentino maintained that the handwritings belonged to the same persons.

The MTCC had explained, in its Decision, that it asked extensive clarificatory questions from both expert witnesses — one from the NBI and one from the PNP — and had them explain their findings in detail using enlarged photographs of the questioned ballots. The NBI witness patiently explained his findings and illustrated them with enlarged photographs, and the court agreed with the NBI examiner's conclusion that there were significant similarities in the handwritings. The court found it difficult to see the differences pointed out by the PNP examiner, noting that when the PNP witness testified that the tip of the letter A on Q-1 was arcaded while the letter A on Q-2 was written in a circular manner, the court could not determine the difference between the arcaded and circular manner of writing, and the witness could not explain the differences clearly.

• Misquotation of Fermo: Tolentino alleged that Atty. Millado improperly misrepresented the ruling in Fermo vs. COMELEC in the Petition for Certiorari filed before the COMELEC, to the effect that "shortness of the remaining term of office and posting of bond are not good reasons for execution of a judgment pending appeal."
• Misleading Date in Manifestation: Tolentino alleged that Atty. Sibayan wrote a misleading statement in his Extremely Urgent Manifestation/Motion, stating that the protest case was decided on May 5, 2014, when the MTCC had in fact rendered its Decision on November 26, 2014.
• False Allegation of Bias: Tolentino claimed that respondents falsely alleged that the MTCC had baselessly disregarded the conclusions of the PNP Crime Laboratory regarding dissimilarities in the handwritings, resulting in prejudice against Manalo, when the handwritings belonged to the same persons.

• No Misquotation of Fermo: Atty. Millado denied having misquoted the doctrine in Fermo, arguing that the Court ruled that "shortness of term, alone and by itself, cannot justify premature execution," and that his statement in the Petition for Certiorari meant the same thing — that shortness of term alone is not a sufficient ground to support execution pending appeal without other justifying grounds.
• Honest Observation on PNP Findings: Atty. Millado averred that his statement regarding the MTCC's disregard of the PNP Crime Laboratory findings was honest and objective, noting that the MTCC favored the NBI's findings even when the court "could not determine the difference between the arcaded and circular manner of writing," and that he merely observed that the MTCC substituted its own findings for those of the PNP despite lacking expertise in analyzing handwritings.
• Typographical Error: Atty. Sibayan alleged that he had inadvertently written May 5, 2014 instead of November 26, 2014 as the date of the MTCC Decision, admitting a typographical error but insisting on lack of intent to mislead, especially since he had correctly indicated in the first paragraph of the same motion that the MTCC had rendered its Decision on November 26, 2014.
• Irrelevance of Date to Shortness of Term: Atty. Sibayan argued that whether the MTCC rendered its Decision in May 2014 or November 2014, the fact remained that the contested office had a remaining term of approximately two years, negating shortness of term as a ground justifying execution pending appeal.

• Misquotation of Fermo: Whether Atty. Millado committed misrepresentation or misquotation of the ruling in Fermo vs. COMELEC in his Petition for Certiorari before the COMELEC.
• Misleading Date: Whether Atty. Sibayan committed an unethical misrepresentation by erroneously stating the date of the MTCC Decision in his Manifestation/Motion filed before the COMELEC.
• Attribution of Bias: Whether respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by alleging that the MTCC was biased and lacked expertise in disregarding the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory.

• Misquotation of Fermo: No. The Court found no misrepresentation or misquotation committed by Atty. Millado, as he merely restated the Fermo ruling without altering its substance, placing only the phrase "shortness of term" inside quotation marks.
• Misleading Date: No. The Court found Atty. Sibayan's explanation sufficient, accepting that the erroneous date was a typographical error committed without intent to mislead, given that the correct date was stated in the first paragraph of the same pleading.
• Attribution of Bias: Yes. The Court found that respondents recklessly alleged not only the MTCC's lack of expertise and experience but also its bias, in violation of Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Misquotation of Fermo: The Court examined Atty. Millado's Petition for Certiorari and noted that only the phrase "shortness of term" was placed inside quotation marks. He did not exactly quote the full passages from Fermo — namely, "shortness of term, alone and by itself, cannot justify premature execution" and "shortness of the remaining term of office and posting a bond are not good reasons for execution of a judgment pending appeal." Atty. Millado merely restated the ruling without altering its substance, which the Court found permissible. The substance of both statements was the same: before an order directing execution pending appeal in an election protest case can be issued, there must exist other grounds justifying the same apart from shortness of term alone.

• Misleading Date: The Court acknowledged that Atty. Sibayan indeed erroneously wrote in paragraph 12.4 of his Manifestation/Motion that the MTCC had rendered its Decision on May 5, 2014. However, the correct date — November 26, 2014 — was properly indicated in paragraph 1 of the same pleading. Relying on Adez Realty, Inc. vs. CA, which reminds lawyers of their duty to check and review the allegations in their pleadings and ensure accuracy, the Court nonetheless found sufficient Atty. Sibayan's explanation that he committed a typographical error without any real intent to mislead. While lawyers are enjoined to be precise, occasional errors committed or omitted without apparent intent to deceive do not provide compelling grounds for disciplinary measures.

• Attribution of Bias: The Court agreed with Tolentino that respondents should be penalized for falsely alleging that the MTCC, with partiality, disregarded the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory on the basis of mere observation. The MTCC had amply explained its reasons for according more credence to the NBI expert witness, noting that it asked extensive clarificatory questions from both experts and found the NBI witness's explanations clearer and more persuasive. Where there were two conflicting testimonies from expert witnesses, the trial court was not bound by either and was not precluded from making its own conclusions. The MTCC used its powers of observation and properly applied logic to the facts. Yet in their pleadings, respondents recklessly alleged not only the MTCC's lack of expertise and experience but also its bias, attributing to the judge motives not supported by the record. Citing A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, the Court emphasized that while lawyers may criticize judges, such criticism must be bona fide and must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism and abuse or slander of courts. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts and subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. Although the complaint was filed under Canon 10, the allegations clearly included violations of Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04, which prohibit scandalous or offensive language before the courts and the attribution to a judge of motives not supported by the record.

• Duty of Respect to Courts — Membership in the Bar imposes upon a lawyer the obligation to conduct himself with all good fidelity to the courts and to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers. While a lawyer may criticize a judge, such criticism must be bona fide and must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism that attributes to a judge motives not supported by the record constitutes a gross violation of the duty of respect and subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by finding that respondents' allegations of bias and lack of expertise against the MTCC, unsupported by the record, violated Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04.

• Lawyer's Duty to Verify Pleadings — It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review, and recheck the allegations in their pleadings and ensure that the statements therein are accurate. A lawyer should never venture to mislead the court by false statements or quotations of facts or laws. However, occasional errors committed without apparent intent to deceive do not provide compelling grounds for disciplinary measures. The Court applied this doctrine by accepting Atty. Sibayan's explanation that an erroneous date was a typographical error, given that the correct date appeared elsewhere in the same pleading.

• Permissible Restatement of Authority — A lawyer may restate the ruling of a cited case without exactly quoting its full text, provided the substance of the ruling is not altered. Placing only a key phrase inside quotation marks, rather than the entire passage, does not constitute misquotation where the restated meaning is consistent with the original. The Court applied this principle in finding that Atty. Millado's citation of Fermo vs. COMELEC was permissible.

• "A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct, that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action." — This passage, quoted from A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, articulates the controlling doctrine on the boundary between permissible criticism of judges and unethical intemperate language warranting disciplinary sanction.

• "Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case." — This provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the direct textual basis for the Court's finding that respondents violated their duty of respect by alleging MTCC bias without record support.

• "While the lawyers are enjoined to be precise in the allegations in their pleadings, occasional errors, if committed or omitted without apparent intent to deceive, do not provide the Court with compelling grounds to impose disciplinary measures." — This passage defines the threshold for distinguishing innocent typographical errors from sanctionable misrepresentations, and was applied to exonerate Atty. Sibayan on the misleading-date charge.

• Fermo vs. COMELEC, 384 Phil. 584 (2000) — The cited authority on execution pending appeal in election protest cases, holding that shortness of term alone cannot justify premature execution. The Court examined whether Atty. Millado misquoted this ruling and found no misquotation, as he had merely restated its substance without alteration.

• Adez Realty, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 100643, October 30, 1992, 215 SCRA 301 — Cited for the proposition that lawyers have a bounden duty to check and review the allegations in their pleadings and ensure accuracy, and must never mislead the court by false statements. Applied in evaluating Atty. Sibayan's typographical error, ultimately found insufficient for disciplinary sanction absent intent to deceive.

• Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 660 Phil. 1 (2011) — Cited for the doctrine on the lawyer's duty of respectful behavior toward the courts, the distinction between fair criticism and intemperate abuse, and the disciplinary consequences of the latter. Applied as the primary doctrinal basis for reprimanding respondents for attributing bias and lack of expertise to the MTCC.

• Atty. Fernandez vs. CA Justices Verzola, Villarama, Jr. and Guariña III, 480 Phil. 1 (2004) — Cited for the principle that the use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum, and that criticism without fair basis grossly violates the duty to accord respect to courts.

• Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Rule 10.01 prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood, misleading the court, or allowing the court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 prohibits knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting the contents of a paper, the language or argument of opposing counsel, the text of a decision or authority, or asserting as a fact that which has not been proved. These provisions were the basis of the original complaint but were ultimately found not violated by respondents.

• Canon 11, Rules 11.03 and 11.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 11 requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Rule 11.03 prohibits scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the courts. Rule 11.04 prohibits a lawyer from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. These provisions were the basis for the Court's reprimand of both respondents, notwithstanding that the complaint was originally framed under Canon 10.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr., and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.