PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

CARLOS V. EUSEBIO, Complainant, vs. NICEFORO S. AGATON, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

CONCEPCION JR., J.: chanrobles virtual law library

In a sworn letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated June 15, 1977, Carlos V. Eusebio seeks the disbarment of the attorney for his advised in Sp. Proc. No. QE-00807 of,the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, entitled: "Carlos V. Eusebio, petioner, versus Mercedes B. Eusebio, etc., respondent," upon the ground of gross misconduct for having made the following statement in the Answer:

3. Petitioner does not possess a balanced mentality and temperament as to be fit to continue with the care, custody, and control of the aforementioned minor children. Indeed, he has arbitrarily and tyranically ordered his children to stop schooling ...

which statement is allegedly neither dignified nor in keeping with the dignity of legal profession, and in utter violation and disregard of his duty, as a member of the Bar, to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is also claimed that the respondent violated his oath as attorney more particularly that portion wherein he swore to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court and to act with good fidelity to the courts, for having sufficient reason to beleive that the aforequoted statement is false, thereby consenting to the doing of falsehood in court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint further claims that by making the aforestated defamatory statement, the respondent has clearly established his bad character and unfitness to remain as lawyer and has brought reproach upon the legal profession, failing as he did, to meet the highest degree of morality and integrity expected of members of the Bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent, Atty. Niceforo S. Agaton, was required to answer, and he replied that the statements complained of are, indeed, containe din the Answer he filed in behalf of the respondent, Mercedes B. Eusebio in Sp. Proc. No. 00807 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, but he denied that he intended to damage or discredit the complainant. He claims that the pleading, although denominated as "Answer", is alsi a counter-petition for haveas corpus where the complainant's wife is seeking the custody of her minor childre, Seth and Jude Eusebio, for which reason, the respondent contends that "(h)e was merely discharging his duties to his client, with a justifiable motive of alleging grounds to show the unfitness of the complainant to take care fo the children," and that "(t)he allegations made were intended to show that the complaint had an unstable disposition." The respondent further contends that the allegations complained of are privileged communication because it was filed in the course of a judicial proceeding.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint for disbarment cannot be given due course. The statement complained of is relevant and material to the points at issue and the respondent acted without malice in filling the same. besides, the said statement, taken in the light of the responsive pleading in its entirety, is not contemptible as to consider the author thereof guilty of grave misconduct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the complaint for the disbarment of the respondent is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

  chanrobles virtual law library

BARREDO, J., concurring: chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent's choice of words in bad, but I feel the language used again complainant is not necessarily insuIting, consider the circumstances explained in the answer.

BARREDO, J., concurring:

Respondent's choice of words in bad, but I feel the language used again complainant is not necessarily insuIting, consider the circumstances explained in the answer.