Legal Ethics Case Digest:

ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO vs ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO,

Principle:

People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterward. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.

Facts:

Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC Nueva Ecija, she filed with CBD – IBP a Complaint-Affidavit with supporting documents against Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8, and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of the IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter, went to the complainant’s office to inquire whether the complete records of a particular civil case had already been remanded to the court of origin. Here, it must be noted that the respondent was not the counsel of record of either party.

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin. In return, the respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.

Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of which she was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely.

The IBP submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Issue:

Whether Atty Castro is guilty for the charges filed against him

Ruling:

Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.

Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.

Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

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

Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.

As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not categorically deny the charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case.

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of professional duty.