Washington vs. Dicen

A lawyer's arguments in pleadings must be gracious, courteous, dignified, civil, and temperate even if forceful; the use of language that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper—including personal attacks, name-calling, and imputation of criminal acts against opposing parties—constitutes a violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Pheninah D.F. Washington discovered that her house in Dumaguete City, occupied by the family of her niece Roselyn R. Toralde, had fallen into dilapidation and was badly infested with termites. On August 14, 2015, Washington went to the property to perform necessary repairs. Police arrived and arrested Washington and her companions. Washington alleged that Atty. Dicen—Roselyn's uncle and Washington's first cousin—ordered the arrest for trespassing despite her status as lawful owner. Atty. Dicen denied issuing any arrest order, claiming Washington was apprehended in flagrante delicto committing coercion by removing the G.I. sheet roofing to force the occupants to vacate.

• The Arrest Incident: On August 14, 2015, complainant Washington proceeded to her house in Dumaguete City, occupied by her niece Roselyn R. Toralde's family, to conduct repairs after discovering termite infestation and dilapidation. Police arrived and arrested Washington and her companions. Washington claimed Atty. Dicen (Roselyn's uncle and Washington's first cousin) ordered the arrest for trespassing despite her ownership. Atty. Dicen denied ordering any arrest, asserting Washington was caught in flagrante delicto committing coercion by removing the G.I. sheet roofing to force the occupants to vacate.

• The Offensive Manifestation: In his Manifestation dated October 19, 2016 filed before the IBP, Atty. Dicen described Washington's actions as having "no sane purpose" except to "persecute respondent and satisfy her crazy quest for revenge." He characterized Washington as a "lunatic" and described her as a "puppet and a milking cow" of a foreigner named Martin, who allegedly lived with her while her husband was in the United States recuperating from surgery.

• The Offensive Position Paper: In his Position Paper dated November 28, 2016, Atty. Dicen escalated the personal attacks, stating that Washington was "no longer thinking on her own" but had become "fixated on her illicit and immoral, if not adulterous relationship" with her ex-husband Martin Vince. He further described her as "so hostile and unreasonable, if not unchristian" to her relatives who were members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

• IBP Findings: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found no merit in the allegation that Atty. Dicen ordered Washington's arrest, but noted that his use of offensive language and resort to gossip to prove a point fell short of the gracious, courteous, dignified, civil, and temperate language required of lawyers.

• Abuse of Privilege: Washington maintained that Atty. Dicen abused his power and privilege as a lawyer by ordering police to arrest her for trespassing when she was the lawful owner of the property, merely attempting to repair her own house.

• Unethical Conduct: Washington argued that Atty. Dicen's actions constituted unethical practice of law, leveraging his professional status to harass a relative and interfere with her property rights.

• Denial of Authority: Atty. Dicen countered that he never ordered Washington's arrest, as he possessed no power or authority to direct police action. He claimed Washington was arrested after being caught in flagrante delicto committing coercion by demolishing the house to force the occupants out.

• Defense of Characterization: While not explicitly justifying the specific language as proper, Atty. Dicen's pleadings implied that his characterizations were responsive to Washington's allegedly irrational behavior in demolishing the house despite pending unlawful detainer proceedings.

• Violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8: Whether Atty. Dicen should be held administratively liable for violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his use of intemperate, abusive, and offensive language in his pleadings filed before the IBP.

• Violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8: Atty. Dicen was found guilty. The language employed in his Manifestation and Position Paper—describing Washington as a "lunatic," "puppet," and "milking cow," and accusing her of an "illicit and immoral, if not adulterous relationship"—was derogatory, maligned her character, and imputed the crime of adultery. Such language violated the duty to use expressions that are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory. Atty. Dicen could have stated the ultimate facts regarding his participation (or lack thereof) in the arrest without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. The totality of circumstances established a clear violation of the prohibition against abusive, offensive, or improper language in professional dealings.

• Standard of Language in Pleadings (Canon 8, Rule 8.01 CPR) — Lawyers must employ language that is gracious, courteous, dignified, civil, and temperate even if forceful. Arguments should be convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. The "language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but respectful." The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of a judicial forum.

• Practice of Law as Privilege — The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

• "The language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive."

• "Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum."

• "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." (Rule 8.01, Canon 8, CPR)

• Atty. Barandon, Jr. v. Atty. Ferrer, Sr., 630 Phil. 524 (2010) — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege subject to standards of morality and proficiency.

• Atty. Torres v. Atty. Javier, 501 Phil. 397 (2005) — Controlling precedent establishing that lawyers' arguments must be gracious and that respectful language is always available.

• Spouses Nuezca v. Atty. Villagarcia, 792 Phil. 535 (2016) — Cited for the prohibition against intemperate language in judicial fora.

• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." Applied to hold that Atty. Dicen's use of terms such as "lunatic," "crazy quest for revenge," "puppet," "milking cow," and accusations of adultery constituted abusive and offensive language.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Instructs that a lawyer's arguments should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel, using words properly addressed by one gentleman to another.

Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Jardeleza, Tijam, and Gesmundo, JJ.