PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

ESTRELLA OCHIDA, Complainant, vs. HONESTO CABARROGUIS, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

Estrella Ochida is the defendant in Civil Case No. 529 of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Tagum Branch IX. That case was filed against her by the heirs of Felipe Cordova.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On September 24, 1975 Atty. Honesto Cabarroguis, the counsel for the heirs, while arguing a motion in the said case characterized Mrs. Ochida as a "fugitive from justice". He said:

Atty. Cabarroguis: That is not the point. There are matters here which have become moot and academic because the Director of Forestry has already ordered it. So what is left in fact before the Honorable Court is our claim for Estrella Ochida to render an accounting and for us to get the court's approval of the revocation so that she can not continue representing the heirs of Felipe Cordova in public.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As Atty. Arro stated, Estrella Ochida is in Manila. As a matter of fact, we can safely say she is a fugitive from justice because there are five (5) warrants of arrest pending against her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Arro: We object to that manifestation, Your Honor. It is off-tangent. We move that the same, Your Honor, be stricken off from the records.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Court: I hope the counsels will stick to the matters ... Strike it off from the records.

Mrs. Ochida resented the characterization that she was a "fugitive from justice". She regarded it as a verification or calumny. On October 8, 1975 she filed in the lower court a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Cabarroguis. It was forwarded to this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent in his comment invoked the rule that the relevant utterances of judges, lawyers and witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. He alleged that the statement complained of was pertinent to the case because he wanted to underscore Mrs. Ochida's dilatory tactics; that the truth was that she was charged with estafa in five cases, and that the special counsel of the Provincial Fiscal's Office of Davao del Norte in his resolution dated November 26, 1975 dismissed her complaint against Atty. Cabarroguis for grave oral defamation in connection with the same statement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent further pointed out that Mrs. Ochida's complaint against him for damages in the sum of P132,000, also in connection with the same utterance, was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Davao in its order dated December 3, 1975 in Civil Case No. 710.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

He claimed that the criminal and civil complaints as well as the instant disbarment charge were filed in bad faith and were intended to harass him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Mrs. Ochida in her reply contended that respondent's imputation against her was not relevant; that it was inaccurate because she had posted the corresponding bail bonds, and that she appealed from the order dismissing her complaint for damages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The issue is whether the respondent committed a gross misconduct which justifies disciplinary action against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A lawyer should treat the opposite party or suitor "with fairness and due consideration" and should avoid offensive personalities and improper speech against an opposing litigant (Par. 18, Canons of Professional Ethics).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent lawyer used abrasive language in branding Mrs. Ochida as a "fugitive from justice", an expression which, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, refers to "one who having committed or being accused of a crime in one jurisdiction is absent for any reason from that jurisdiction; specifically: one who flees to avoid punishment". A lawyer with a keen sense of decorum and propriety would have avoided such intemperate language.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the other hand, it is believable that the respondent, irked by the alibis interposed by opposing counsel that Mrs. Ochida was "out of town" or was in Manila, lost his cool and was provoked to resort to strong language against her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

"Undoubtedly, lawyers should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold." As felicitously observed in a case, "for the felicity of their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of phrase" (Dorado vs. Pilar, 104 Phil 743, 748).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent's infelicitous utterance does not constitute gross misconduct Hence, no disciplinary action is called for. He is warned that the use of offensive language should be avoided and that a repetition of that impropriety would be dealt with more severely (Dorado vs. Pilar, supra; Deles vs. Aragona, Jr., Administrative Case No. 598, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 633).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint in this case is dismissed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.