The Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s use of intemperate language towards another lawyer, even when acting in defense of a client, constitutes a breach of ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court emphasized that while zealous advocacy is expected, it must be tempered with courtesy, fairness, and candor. This decision serves as a reminder that maintaining professional respect is paramount, even amidst adversarial proceedings, and that inappropriate language can result in disciplinary action.

When Words Wound: Balancing Advocacy and Respect in Legal Battles

The case of Atty. Delio M. Aseron v. Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. arose from a vehicular accident and the subsequent legal actions taken by both parties. Atty. Aseron, the complainant, sought the disbarment of Atty. Diño, the respondent, alleging violations of the CPR based on the language used in a reply letter and purported dilatory tactics in handling related cases. The central issue was whether Atty. Diño’s conduct, specifically the content of his letter, violated the ethical standards expected of members of the bar. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed the importance of maintaining courtesy and professionalism within the legal community, even when zealously advocating for a client’s interests.

The complainant alleged that Atty. Diño’s reply letter contained abusive, disrespectful language and unfounded accusations that tarnished his reputation. Specifically, the letter insinuated that the complainant had used his influence as a former public prosecutor to pressure the respondent’s client into paying a “mercenary claim.” The complainant also argued that the respondent employed dilatory tactics in the criminal and civil cases stemming from the accident by filing numerous motions that were eventually denied. Finally, the complainant claimed that the respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the ownership of the bus involved in the accident, misleading the court.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint and found that Atty. Diño had indeed violated the CPR. The IBP Board of Governors initially recommended a censure, later modifying the penalty to a reprimand. This decision was based on the finding that the respondent failed to conduct himself with the necessary courtesy toward his fellow lawyer, as required by the CPR.

Canon 8 of the CPR mandates that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues. Rule 8.01 specifically states:

Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

The Court emphasized that this rule aims to foster a harmonious and respectful environment within the legal profession. While lawyers are expected to advocate vigorously for their clients, this advocacy should not come at the expense of professional courtesy and respect.

In its decision, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between zealous advocacy and ethical conduct. The Court acknowledged that lawyers have a duty to represent their clients’ interests effectively. However, this duty must be fulfilled within the bounds of the law and the ethical standards of the legal profession. The Court noted that the respondent could have raised his concerns about the complainant’s alleged influence in a more appropriate forum and without resorting to offensive language.

The Court further reiterated that the use of strong language, even in the heat of litigation, is not justified. As stated in the decision:

Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

This statement encapsulates the Court’s view that lawyers can effectively represent their clients without resorting to abusive or disrespectful language. There is a wide range of communication styles that allow for forceful advocacy while still maintaining professional decorum.

The Supreme Court also addressed the procedural issue of the respondent’s second Motion for Reconsideration. While the Rules of Court do not typically allow for a second motion for reconsideration, the Court, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings, treated the motion as a petition for review under Rule 45. This demonstrates the Court’s willingness to be flexible in procedural matters to ensure a fair resolution, especially in cases involving the potential discipline of a lawyer.

The Court ultimately affirmed the IBP’s decision to reprimand Atty. Diño. In line with precedent, such as Uy v. Atty. Depasucat, where lawyers were reprimanded for using offensive language, the Court found the penalty appropriate given the circumstances. The reprimand serves as a reminder to all lawyers to be mindful of their language and to maintain professional courtesy, even when faced with challenging or adversarial situations.

The decision highlights the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. By reprimanding Atty. Diño for his intemperate language, the Court reinforced the principle that lawyers are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and courtesy. This decision has practical implications for all lawyers, reminding them to carefully consider their language and conduct in all professional dealings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Diño’s use of intemperate language in a letter to Atty. Aseron violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court examined whether the language used was abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.
What is Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 8 requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their fellow lawyers. This canon promotes a respectful and harmonious environment within the legal profession.
What was the specific language used by Atty. Diño that was deemed inappropriate?	Atty. Diño insinuated that Atty. Aseron had used his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass his clients. The Court found that this language was abusive and offensive.
What is the penalty for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The penalty can range from censure to suspension or disbarment, depending on the severity of the misconduct. In this case, Atty. Diño was reprimanded.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for using strong language in court?	Yes, while zealous advocacy is encouraged, it must be tempered with respect and courtesy. Abusive or offensive language is not permitted.
What is the difference between censure and reprimand?	A censure is a formal expression of disapproval, while a reprimand is a more formal and public rebuke. Both are disciplinary measures, but a reprimand carries more weight.
Why did the Supreme Court consider the second Motion for Reconsideration?	The Court, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the nature of disbarment proceedings, treated the motion as a petition for review under Rule 45.
What is the significance of the Uy v. Atty. Depasucat case?	The Uy case serves as a precedent for disciplining lawyers who use offensive language. It supports the Court’s stance on maintaining professional courtesy.

This case underscores the importance of maintaining professional courtesy within the legal profession. It serves as a reminder that while zealous advocacy is expected, it must be tempered with respect and consideration for fellow members of the bar. The decision in Atty. Delio M. Aseron v. Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. reinforces the ethical obligations of lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor in all professional dealings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON VS. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR., A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016