Torres vs. Javier

Utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged only if they are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry; irrelevant and libelous matters that reflect personal malice are not protected, and a lawyer using such abusive, offensive, or improper language violates Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Atty. Torres, as President of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA), and respondent Atty. Javier, as counsel for former UEFA President Eleonor Javier (his wife) and other faculty members, were opposing counsel in two labor disputes before the Department of Labor and Employment. The first case involved a petition for audit of UEFA funds, while the second involved a complaint for attorney's fees checked off from UEFA members' backwages. The professional relationship was strained by Atty. Torres's criticisms of Mrs. Javier's tenure as UEFA President and his filing of criminal complaints against her and other faculty members, prompting respondent to retaliate through intemperate language in his pleadings.

• The Audit Case: Respondent filed an "Urgent Motion to Expedite" wherein he implied that complainants had staged a burglary of the UEFA office to destroy or conceal documents related to the pending audit. He compared the incident to the Andersen/Enron document-shredding scandal, called the alleged robbery an "inside job" and an "old gimmick," and alleged that complainants had a motive to loot union funds.
• The Attorney's Fees Case: Atty. Torres, in his Answer to the complaint, criticized Mrs. Javier's performance as UEFA President, alleging she spent over half a million pesos in negotiation expenses for a negligible salary increase and was booed like a "confused gabble" at an assembly.
• Retaliatory Language: Irked by Atty. Torres's statements, respondent filed a Reply containing derogatory remarks. He asked "what kind of lawyer is this Atty. Torres?", stated "he lies through his teeth," suggested "if he has any common sense at all he should shut up," and attributed a "pattern of mental dishonesty" to Torres based on previously dismissed cases.
• Insults on Legal Acumen: In defending his clients against allegations of falsifying a notarized document, respondent stated that "even a dim-witted first-year law student would not oblige with such a very serious charge" and asked "what law books is he reading?"
• Notarial Practice Remark: To refute the forgery allegation, respondent stated that it is not uncommon for notaries public to ask relatives or girlfriends to operate the notarial office and sign for them. He supported this by citing the subsequent NBI arrest of a person impersonating the notary public in question.

• Malicious Imputation in Audit Case: Complainants argued that respondent’s statements in the Motion to Expedite were absolutely false, unsubstantiated, and maliciously imputed the crimes of robbery, theft, and destruction of documents, thereby violating the attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Abusive Language in Attorney's Fees Case: Complainants maintained that the language used in respondent's Reply was clearly abusive, offensive, and improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer.
• Demeaning the Profession: Complainants argued that respondent’s statement regarding notaries public having relatives sign for them was uncalled for, demeaned the integrity of the legal profession, and diminished public confidence in the solemnity of notarial documents.

• Relevance of Audit Case Statements: Respondent countered that his statements in the audit case were relevant to inform the BLR of the loss of vital documents and to draw a link between the burglary and the audit, justifying the expedition of the resolution. He admitted he was angry because Atty. Torres was implicating his wife in the burglary.
• Provocation in Attorney's Fees Case: Respondent argued that he was provoked by Atty. Torres’s Answer, which mocked his wife and fabricated realities. He asserted he was defending his clients against baseless harassment and forgery accusations.
• Legitimate Defense: Respondent maintained that his statement about notarial practices was a legitimate defense of his client, who was falsely accused of forgery, and was proven true by the NBI arrest of an impostor.

• Privileged Communication in Audit Case: Whether respondent’s statements imputing a burglary and cover-up to complainants in the audit case are privileged and thus not subject to administrative liability.
• Improper Language in Attorney's Fees Case: Whether respondent’s derogatory statements against opposing counsel in the attorney's fees case constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Demeaning Statement on Notarial Practice: Whether respondent’s statement regarding the common practice of notaries public having relatives sign for them warrants administrative sanction.

• Privileged Communication in Audit Case: The first cause of action was dismissed because the imputation of a plausible motive for the burglary, though potentially false, was relevant to the audit case as it could prompt the BLR to expedite the resolution; thus, absolute privilege applies.
• Improper Language in Attorney's Fees Case: Administrative liability was established because the derogatory statements were palpably irrelevant to the issue of the legality of the 10% attorney's fees. The privilege of relevancy does not shield personal colloquies and attacks actuated by ill-feeling. Respondent's language violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Demeaning Statement on Notarial Practice: No administrative liability was found for this statement because, given its relevance to defending his client against forgery accusations, respondent was given the benefit of the doubt.

• Absolute Privilege in Judicial Proceedings — Utterances made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, including pleadings, are absolutely privileged provided they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of the inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. The privilege is lost if the pleader alleges an irrelevant matter that is libelous. The matter must be legitimately related or pertinent to the subject of the controversy such that it may become the subject of inquiry during trial.
• Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues — Under Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues, avoiding harassing tactics and language that is abusive, offensive, or improper. Ill-feelings existing between clients do not justify counsel abandoning professional conduct and engaging in bickering or recrimination.

• "It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be."
• "Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct toward each other or toward suitors in the case."
• "The language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive."

• Gutierrez v. Abila, 111 SCRA 658 (1982) — Followed. Established that utterances in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged if pertinent and relevant, and that a party harassed by baseless complaints has adequate recourse in law.
• Tolentino v. Baylosis, 1 SCRA 396 (1961) — Followed. Defined the threshold for losing privilege: a matter must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy or impropriety.
• People v. Sesbreno, 130 SCRA 465 (1984) — Followed. Held that ill-feeling between clients should not influence counsel's conduct and that lawyers must rein up their temper and use dignified language.
• Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, 420 SCRA 132 (2004) — Followed. Emphasized that arguments in pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel.
• Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 (1967) — Followed. Stated that the language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Applied to emphasize that respondent's personal attacks violated the duty of courtesy and professionalism.
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from using language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper in professional dealings. Applied as the direct basis for finding respondent administratively liable for his derogatory remarks against opposing counsel.

Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairman), Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona, Cancio C. Garcia