A.C. No. 13435 – DENIS GUY MARTIN, complainant, vs. ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, respondent.

KHO, JR., J.

Rule Synopsis

The practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties, not only to their client, but also to their brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the public, and takes part in the administration of justice, one of the most important functions of the State, as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain, not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

Facts

In August 2018, Denis Guy Martin (Martin) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala (Atty. Ala) for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Martin was married to Ala’s sister, Rebecca. They separated legally and filed cases against each other, where Atty. Ala represented her sister. In 2006, Martin filed a disbarment case against Atty. Ala for allegedly representing conflicting interests and for using abusive and offensive language, for which the IBP recommended that Atty. Ala Ala be suspended for two months from the practice of law. In January 2017, Ala filed a deportation complaint against Martin. In April 2017, an apparent altercation occurred between Ala and Martin’s son/Ala’s nephew, Jean Marc.

The said incidents led to the filing of the instant disbarment complaint. Martin alleged the following:

• Atty. Ala ordered the responding police officers during the altercation to shoot his son, Ala’s nephew, thus charging her with attempted murder, violating the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR;
• Atty. Ala represented conflicting interests in the deportation case she filed against him when she used information previously obtained from its client, Drilling & Blasting Management Group, Inc., of which Rebecca (Martin’s ex-wife) was the President, thus violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR; and
• Atty. Ala continues to use abusive and offensive language in her pleadings despite the previous sanction and warning given by the Court, in violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC), as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors (Board), found:

• On the first charge, Atty. Ala was administratively liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.0 of the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath. However, the IBP-IC found no apparent intention on Atty. Ala’s part given that she was under distress due to Jean Marc’s actions;
• On the second charge, there is no merit in Martin’s claim that Atty. Ala is guilty of representing conflicting interests; and
• On the third charge, Atty. Ala was liable for violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR for using abusive and offensive words in her various in the deportation case.

The IBP Board recommended the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Issues

Should Atty. Ala be held administratively liable for the acts complained of?

Ruling and Discussion

Note: the CPRA applies in this case although the complaint against Atty. Tecson was instituted before its effectivity. Sec. 1 of the CPRA provides for its retroactive application “except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice.”

Yes. Atty. Ala should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

1. Atty. Ala should be held administratively liable in connection with her conduct during the altercation with Jean Marc, in violation of Canon II, Section 2 and Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA.
   
   As an officer of the court, a lawyer must ensure that the Constitution and the laws, including legal processes, are observed not only in her conduct and dealings with others, but also by those around them. The CPRA requires lawyer to “uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession.” It also proscribes lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law, and behaving in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.
   
   Here, Atty. Ala urged the responding police officers to shoot her nephew, Jean Marc, several times despite the Police officers’ refusal to heed her instructions in view of existing legal and police procedures. The incident was narrated in the Affidavit of Arrest.
   
   Atty.. Ala’s acts demonstrate a conscious disrespect of the laws and legal processes. Worse, her actions showed a disregard for her nephew’s basic right not to be deprived of life and liberty without due process of the law.
   
   While Atty. Ala may have been impelled by strong emotions of fear and/or distress and the need to protect her family, she should nonetheless have refrained from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Atty. Ala should have observed a greater degree of prudence and circumspection in her actions and words at all times.
2. Atty. Ala cannot be held liable for conflict of interest when she filed the deportation case against Martin.
   
   The rule on conflict of interest applies when a lawyer-client relationship exists, the purpose of which is to protect the fiduciary nature of the ties between an attorney and their client. Evidently, the rule finds no application when no such relationship exists, as when it is the lawyer themself that files the case against the former client involving no confidential information obtained from the latter.
   
   Here, Atty. Ala was representing herself and there was no indication that she used or abused any confidential information she may previously have acquired from Martin in prosecuting the deportation case. The evidence on record fails to support Martin’s allegation that Atty. Ala is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon Martin to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence. As far as the violation of the rule against conflict of interest is concerned, Martin failed.
3. Atty. Ala should be held liable for using intemperate and abusive language in violation of Canon II, Sections 4 and 13 of the CPRA.
   
   On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court reminded members of the Bar to abstain from any offensive personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in their pleadings, must be dignified, failing in which, they must be held administratively liable for violating Canon II, Sections 4 and 13 of the CPRA, as in this case.
   
   While a lawyer is entitled to present their case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
   
   Here, Atty. Ala essentially accused Martin and his counsel of tampering with records; questioned his dignity; and criticized his counsel’s knowledge of basic legal forms and of the laws in her submissions in the deportation case.

dispositive

Atty. Ala found guilty of violating CPRA, and suspended from the practice of law for six months and one year, for violating Canon II, Section 2 and Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA (first charge), and Canon II, Sections 4 and 13 of the CPRA, respectively, to be served successively.