December 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 6516 : December 15, 2010] ROSENDO T. BRILLANTES V. ATTY. ROQUE A. AMANTE, JR.*:
[A.C. No. 6516 : December 15, 2010]
ROSENDO T. BRILLANTES V. ATTY. ROQUE A. AMANTE, JR.*
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 December 2010 which reads as follows:
A.C. No. 6516 (Rosendo T. Brillantes v. Atty. Roque A. Amante, Jr.*).-
Complainant Rosendo T. Brillantes filed a complaint for misconduct against respondent Atty. Daryll Roque A. Amante, Jr. for his reprehensible behavior as counsel in Criminal Case CBU-65872 where he himself was the one accused of frustrated homicide. Brillantes also charges respondent Amante of practicing law without having passed the bar exams. Brillantes claims that it was respondent Amante's brother, a certain Roque Amante, who actually took the bar exams and passed it. Brillantes claims that Daryll combined his first name with his brother Roque's first name so he could practice law in the last 30 years under the latter's license. Atty. Amante denied the charges.
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation. In his report in the case dated March 9, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a report, recommending the imposition of a fine of P10,000.00 on Atty. Amante for his wrongful behavior in connection with the criminal case in which he counseled for himself with a stern warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely. On September 19, 2007 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation.
Three issues are presented for resolution:
(1) Whether or not Atty. Amante abused and misused the judicial processes in violation of Rule 10.03 in relation to Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in connection with the criminal case of frustrated murder of which he was the one charged;
(2) Whether or not Atty. Amante knowingly and willfully violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR when he used abusive, offensive, and improper language against his fellow lawyers; and
(3) Whether or not Atty. Amante committed falsehood in court in violation of Rule 10.01 of the CPR.
The Court adopts the IBP's findings and recommendation.
The records show that Atty. Amante employed delaying tactics to unduly defer his arraignment in Criminal Case CBU-65872. He filed numerous motions for postponement based on clearly unmeritorious grounds. As the IBP found, he took advantage of being a lawyer to make the procedural rules work for him, thus unduly delaying judicial processes and effectively frustrating the administration of justice.
Atty. Amante also used offensive and improper language in his pleadings. He wrote in one, "Why is it that Brillantes is in hurry of this case? Why? Was he paid?"[1] In a counter-affidavit he said, "now robbers, cellphone snatchers, thieves, are all around us; this will happen to my farm since my farm is open/not fence [sic] and many can always steal; farm boys are not enough to guard to sana ma bitch [sic]."[2]
Atty. Amante's indecent language is clearly at odds with the dignity required of lawyers as exemplars of human justice. A lawyer's language can be forceful but dignified or emphatic but respectful, as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of his profession.[3] Instead of setting an example of modesty and propriety in the legal community, Atty. Amante has contributed to the diminishing respect for lawyers.
Finally, Atty. Amante lied when he used as ground for seeking the rescheduling of his arraignment on September 8, 2004 the alleged fact that his petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not yet been resolved. But as the IBP found, the DOJ resolution dismissing his petition had long been promulgated on July 15, 2004. He thus clearly violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR which requires lawyers to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.
Regarding the allegation, however, that Atty. Amante joined his first name to the first name of his brother lawyer so that he could practice law, this Court finds, based on the Bar Confidant's certification dated January 29, 1999, that Roque Amante, Jr. was admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 20, 1978. He took the 1977 Bar Examinations and passed it. But, since his birth certificate gave his name as Darill Roque A. Amante, he submitted a joint affidavit of two disinterested persons attesting to the fact that the names Darill Roque A. Amante, Jr. and Roque A. Amante, Jr. referred to the same person, respondent Atty. Amante.
WHEREFORE, for having violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10, and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the Court IMPOSES on Atty. Roque A. Amante, Jr. a FINE of P10,000.00. He is STERNLY WARNED that his commission of the same or a similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 6516 (Rosendo T. Brillantes v. Atty. Roque A. Amante, Jr.*).-
Complainant Rosendo T. Brillantes filed a complaint for misconduct against respondent Atty. Daryll Roque A. Amante, Jr. for his reprehensible behavior as counsel in Criminal Case CBU-65872 where he himself was the one accused of frustrated homicide. Brillantes also charges respondent Amante of practicing law without having passed the bar exams. Brillantes claims that it was respondent Amante's brother, a certain Roque Amante, who actually took the bar exams and passed it. Brillantes claims that Daryll combined his first name with his brother Roque's first name so he could practice law in the last 30 years under the latter's license. Atty. Amante denied the charges.
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation. In his report in the case dated March 9, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a report, recommending the imposition of a fine of P10,000.00 on Atty. Amante for his wrongful behavior in connection with the criminal case in which he counseled for himself with a stern warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely. On September 19, 2007 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation.
Three issues are presented for resolution:
(1) Whether or not Atty. Amante abused and misused the judicial processes in violation of Rule 10.03 in relation to Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in connection with the criminal case of frustrated murder of which he was the one charged;
(2) Whether or not Atty. Amante knowingly and willfully violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR when he used abusive, offensive, and improper language against his fellow lawyers; and
(3) Whether or not Atty. Amante committed falsehood in court in violation of Rule 10.01 of the CPR.
The Court adopts the IBP's findings and recommendation.
The records show that Atty. Amante employed delaying tactics to unduly defer his arraignment in Criminal Case CBU-65872. He filed numerous motions for postponement based on clearly unmeritorious grounds. As the IBP found, he took advantage of being a lawyer to make the procedural rules work for him, thus unduly delaying judicial processes and effectively frustrating the administration of justice.
Atty. Amante also used offensive and improper language in his pleadings. He wrote in one, "Why is it that Brillantes is in hurry of this case? Why? Was he paid?"[1] In a counter-affidavit he said, "now robbers, cellphone snatchers, thieves, are all around us; this will happen to my farm since my farm is open/not fence [sic] and many can always steal; farm boys are not enough to guard to sana ma bitch [sic]."[2]
Atty. Amante's indecent language is clearly at odds with the dignity required of lawyers as exemplars of human justice. A lawyer's language can be forceful but dignified or emphatic but respectful, as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of his profession.[3] Instead of setting an example of modesty and propriety in the legal community, Atty. Amante has contributed to the diminishing respect for lawyers.
Finally, Atty. Amante lied when he used as ground for seeking the rescheduling of his arraignment on September 8, 2004 the alleged fact that his petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not yet been resolved. But as the IBP found, the DOJ resolution dismissing his petition had long been promulgated on July 15, 2004. He thus clearly violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR which requires lawyers to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.
Regarding the allegation, however, that Atty. Amante joined his first name to the first name of his brother lawyer so that he could practice law, this Court finds, based on the Bar Confidant's certification dated January 29, 1999, that Roque Amante, Jr. was admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 20, 1978. He took the 1977 Bar Examinations and passed it. But, since his birth certificate gave his name as Darill Roque A. Amante, he submitted a joint affidavit of two disinterested persons attesting to the fact that the names Darill Roque A. Amante, Jr. and Roque A. Amante, Jr. referred to the same person, respondent Atty. Amante.
WHEREFORE, for having violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10, and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the Court IMPOSES on Atty. Roque A. Amante, Jr. a FINE of P10,000.00. He is STERNLY WARNED that his commission of the same or a similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* Also referred to as Daryll/DariM Roque A. Amante, Jr.
[1] Rollo, p,435.
[2] Id. at 435-436.
[3] Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florida, 465 Phil. 1, 7 (2004).
