Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares Vs. Atty. Roberto "Agree" C.
Guevarra
A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016
A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016
Complainant is the Medical Director and
principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation
duly organized and existing under Philippine laws and engaged in the
specialized field of cosmetic surgery. On the other hand, respondent is the
lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed
criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure
on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her
ill in 2009.4
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on
his Facebook account calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng
Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng
Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy
respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name
and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed
criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant
disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein
Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services all these despite
the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against
complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal
negligence and estafa.
1.
Decide with reason.
Atty. Roberto "Agree" C. Guevarra is guilty of violation of
Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly
insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject
Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and
BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe
proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked
the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court,
that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and
rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted
himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and
BMGI's reputation.
2.
May Atty. Roberto "Agree" C. G
invoke his constitutional rights on freedom of speech and expression?
No. Freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute.
Every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. As
such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of
to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or
reputation or bring them into disrepute.
Moreover, the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of
complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor,"
"Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna
ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy
respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name
and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed
criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant
disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a
"Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services
all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already
filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal
negligence and estafa which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with
justice."
3.
May Atty. Roberto "Agree" C. G
invoke that the complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and
therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism?
No.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a
public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's
disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant breached the
said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
4.
May lawyers be subjected to administrative
discipline for a conduct committed in their private capacity?
Yes.
Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their
private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or
good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When
the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct
or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's behavior exhibited in connection
with the performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any
misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their
profession—would show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which their license and the law invest in them.
Comments
Post a Comment