Uy vs. Depasucat

A lawyer's statements in a pleading are protected by absolute privileged communication only when they are relevant or pertinent to the case; statements that are so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt their relevancy and impropriety are not privileged and may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action. The use of offensive and abusive language in a pleading, even if the underlying allegation is true, constitutes misconduct when it exceeds the bounds of relevancy and propriety.

The complainant, Johnny K.H. Uy, together with UBS Marketing Corporation, filed an action for reconveyance of real property, cancellation of titles, and recovery of ownership and possession with damages against SK Realty, Inc. and Uy's sisters and their children, who were clients of the respondent lawyers. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-9051 before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City (Branch 43). Prior to this, Uy had appeared as a witness in an administrative case against Judge Renato Abastillas (A.M. No. RTJ-92-863), where he admitted to giving money to the judge in consideration of the dismissal of a case in which he had an interest.

Complainant Johnny K.H. Uy, together with UBS Marketing Corporation, filed an action for reconveyance of real property, cancellation of titles, and recovery of ownership and possession with damages against SK Realty, Inc. and Uy's sisters, Ban Hua U. Flores and Ban Ha U. Chua, together with their children, all clients of respondents Attys. Reynaldo C. Depasucat, William O. Su, and Celso de las Alas. Upon filing the case, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-9051, Uy and UBS caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of the certificates of title of defendant SK Realty with the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City. In a resolution dated November 9, 1995, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping, and subsequently granted the defendants' motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens in a resolution dated December 8, 1995.

Uy and UBS appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 57171. After the parties had filed their respective briefs and before the appellate court's resolution submitting the case for decision was released on March 10, 1999, respondents filed a pleading dated March 1, 1999, entitled "Manifestation of Usurpation of Authority of the Hon. Court of Appeals from a Self-Confessed Briber of Judges." The Manifestation contained a statement that Uy "had, in fact, confessed to 'Bribery and Telling On' of judges, after the judges allegedly refused to give in to their 'demands', by using illegally taped conversations – both actual and by telephone," citing decisions in A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 against Judge Renato Abastillas and A.M. RTJ-92-880 against Judge Bethel K. Moscardon.

In the administrative complaint, Uy alleged that respondents, as members of the Bar, are sworn not to do falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court, nor should they mislead the appellate court by their false, malicious, and libelous imputations against him. He claimed that the filing of the Manifestation was for the purpose of putting him in a bad light to obtain a favorable judgment for their clients, and that respondents furnished copies of the same to persons not even parties to the case. Respondents Su and Depasucat contended that Uy's admission of negotiating for a favorable outcome of a criminal case formed part of the decision in Lee vs. Abastillas, that the bribery imputation was true, and that the Manifestation was an absolutely privileged communication. Respondent delas Alas contended that he signed the Manifestation as collaborating counsel after reading the transcript of the proceeding where Uy admitted having bribed Judge Abastillas.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that while the allegations in the Manifestation regarding Uy being a briber of judges were true, the respondents failed to demonstrate the materiality or relevance of such statement to the appealed case involving recovery of property and cancellation of title. The Commissioner noted that the timing of the filing — only after the case had been submitted for decision — made the respondents' claim of good intention doubtful, and recommended that respondents be warned. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings that respondents used offensive and abusive language but imposed a reprimand instead of a mere admonition. The Court noted that while Uy's admission of bribing Judge Abastillas in A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 was duly proven, there was nothing on record supporting the statement that Uy had also bribed a judge in the Moscardon case (A.M. RTJ-92-880), where it was Atty. Enrique Chua, Uy's lawyer, who was involved. The Court found that respondents had partly made a false imputation against Uy, observing that "half-truths are equally if not more pernicious than outright lies."

• False and Malicious Imputations: Petitioner argued that respondents, as members of the Bar, are sworn not to do falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court, nor should they mislead the appellate court by their false, malicious, and libelous imputations against him.

• Improper Purpose: Petitioner argued that the filing of the Manifestation was for the purpose of putting him in a bad light so as to obtain a favorable judgment for their clients, and that respondents submitted the Manifestation without any provocation, reason, and justification, furnishing copies to persons not even parties to the case.

• Immaterial and Impertinent Allegations: Petitioner argued that the subject Manifestation contains groundless and false imputations which are totally immaterial, irrelevant, and impertinent to the appealed case.

• Truth of the Allegations: Respondents Su and Depasucat contended that Uy's admission that he negotiated for a favorable outcome of a criminal case formed part of the decision in Lee vs. Abastillas, which led to the dismissal of Judge Abastillas from the service, and that the bribery imputation was true.

• Public Knowledge and No Indiscriminate Distribution: Respondents argued that the "bribe and tell scenario" covered by the Manifestation was already of public knowledge as it formed part of the administrative decision, and that there was no indiscriminate distribution of the Manifestation to strangers.

• Absolute Privileged Communication: Respondents argued that assuming the allegations in the Manifestation painted complainant in a bad light, the same is considered an absolutely privileged communication.

• Relevance to the Case: Respondents argued that the Manifestation was relevant as it was filed primarily in response to the extra-judicial, illegal, and improper attempt of Uy to reinstate a lis pendens, and that all of Uy's mischiefs are relevant and material to the appealed case.

• Respondent delas Alas's Position: Respondent delas Alas contended that he appeared as counsel of Uy's siblings in other cases, that he signed the Manifestation as collaborating counsel after reading the transcript where Uy admitted having bribed Judge Abastillas, and that Uy's active participation in bribing a judge is not totally immaterial and irrelevant to the appealed case.

• Relevancy of the Manifestation: Whether the statements in the respondents' Manifestation, branding the complainant a "briber of judges," were relevant or pertinent to the appealed case so as to be protected by the doctrine of absolute privileged communication.

• Misconduct for Offensive Language: Whether the respondents should be disciplined for using offensive and abusive language in their Manifestation.

• Contempt of Court: Whether the complainant should be cited for contempt of court for denying under oath that he is a confessed briber of judges and for accusing respondents of indiscriminately furnishing copies of the Manifestation to strangers.

• Relevancy of the Manifestation: No. The statement that Uy is a briber of judges was not relevant to the issues presented before the appellate court, as the bribing incident did not happen in the case appealed and was not at all pertinent to Uy's action for reconveyance of real property, cancellation of titles, and recovery of ownership and possession, with damages.

• Misconduct for Offensive Language: Yes. The respondents were found at fault and reprimanded for misconduct in using offensive and abusive language in their Manifestation, which exceeded the bounds of relevancy and propriety.

• Contempt of Court: No. There was nothing contemptuous on Uy's desire to protect his honor from what he perceived to be a defamatory imputation against him, and there was no sufficient showing of bad faith in Uy's filing of the administrative complaint.

• Relevancy of the Manifestation: The Court applied the test of relevancy for privileged communications, quoting the rule that "the matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety." Applying this rule, the Court found that although Uy was shown to have admitted bribing a judge, the incident did not happen in the case appealed to the Court of Appeals where the assailed Manifestation was filed. The Court noted that if respondents truly believed in the relevancy of the bribing incident, they could have stated the same in their pleading filed in the trial court in 1995 or in their appellees' brief, considering that the Abastillas case had already been decided in 1994. The Court also found that while the respondents had the duty to inform the appellate court of Uy's improper attempt to reinstate a cancelled lis pendens, they went overboard by further stating that Uy "had in fact confessed to Bribery and Telling On of judges," which belied their good intention and exceeded the bounds of propriety.

• Misconduct for Offensive Language: The Court agreed with the IBP that respondents used offensive and abusive language but imposed a reprimand instead of mere admonition. The Court found that while the statement that Uy had bribed Judge Abastillas was duly proven, there was nothing on record supporting the statement that Uy had also bribed a judge in the Moscardon case, where it was Atty. Enrique Chua, Uy's lawyer, who was involved. The Court held that respondents had partly made a false imputation against Uy, observing that "half-truths are equally if not more pernicious than outright lies." The Court cited the rule that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the Courts, and that a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The Court found that the filing of the Manifestation was a clear attempt to influence the mind of the court against complainant Uy and to decide the appeal in favor of their clients. A higher penalty was not called for considering that respondents were merely over-zealous in ensuring the victory of their clients and honestly thought, although erroneously, that by branding complainant as a "briber of judges," they were justifying their allegation in the Manifestation.

• Contempt of Court: The Court found nothing contemptuous on Uy's desire to protect his honor from what he perceived to be a defamatory imputation against him, since it is within his right to do so. While Uy may have denied the established fact that he bribed Judge Abastillas, his denial as to the other bribing incident was proven to be true since respondents failed to substantiate the same. Furthermore, although Uy failed to prove his allegation that respondents indiscriminately furnished copies of the Manifestation to strangers, the same is not grave enough to warrant the exercise of contempt powers of the Court, as there was no sufficient showing of bad faith in Uy's filing of the administrative complaint.

• Absolute Privileged Communication in Judicial Proceedings — Communications, either written or oral, made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions, and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged. The doctrine rests upon public policy which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer. However, the privilege applies only where the statement is relevant or pertinent or material to the case. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that the respondents' statement branding Uy a "briber of judges" was not relevant to the appealed case involving recovery of property and cancellation of title, and therefore was not protected by the privilege.

• Test of Relevancy for Privileged Communications — As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make alleged defamatory matters privileged, the courts favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety. In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings; it must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial. The Court applied this test and found that the bribing incident was not at all pertinent to Uy's action for reconveyance of real property, cancellation of titles, and recovery of ownership and possession, with damages.

• Lawyer's Duty to Abstain from Offensive Language — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. A lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. It is the duty of lawyers as members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the respondents' Manifestation, which branded Uy a "briber of judges," exceeded the bounds of propriety and constituted misconduct.

• "The matter to which the privileged does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety. In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial." — This passage states the test of relevancy for privileged communications in judicial proceedings, which the Court applied to determine that the respondents' statements were not protected by the privilege.

• "Half-truths are equally if not more pernicious than outright lies." — This statement articulates the Court's finding that the respondents had partly made a false imputation against Uy by claiming he was involved in two bribing incidents when only one was substantiated, and that this partial falsity was as harmful as a complete lie.

• "It must be remembered that the language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive." — This passage emphasizes the standard of language expected of lawyers in their pleadings, supporting the Court's finding that the respondents' offensive language constituted misconduct.

• People vs. Sesbreno, 130 SCRA 465 — Cited for the doctrine that communications made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, tracing the principle to US vs. Salera, 32 Phil. 365.

• People vs. Castelo, 4 SCRA 947 — Cited in support of the public policy rationale for the doctrine of privileged communication, which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice.

• People vs. Malit, 114 SCRA 348 — Cited for the proposition that the privilege is intended for the promotion of the public welfare, so that members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses may speak their minds freely without incurring the risk of criminal prosecution or an action for damages.

• Gutierrez vs. Abila, 111 SCRA 658 — Cited for the rule that lawyers should be allowed a great latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold, and that such remarks should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety.

• Tolentino vs. Baylosis, 1 SCRA 396 — Cited for the test of relevancy for privileged communications, quoted with approval in Smith Bell & Co. vs. Ellis, 48 Phil. 475.

• Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 — Cited for the proposition that a statement that exceeds the bounds of propriety is not arguably protected and offends the court before which it is made.

• Rule 11.03, Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. The Court applied this provision in finding that the respondents' Manifestation, which branded Uy a "briber of judges," constituted misconduct.

• Section 20(f), Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides that it is the duty of lawyers to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which they are charged. The Court cited this provision in support of its finding that the respondents violated their duties as members of the Bar.

Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concurred. Bellosillo (Chairman), J., took no part. Quisumbing, J., was on leave.