Lawyers Must Avoid Harassment and Respect Colleagues: A.C. No. 7088

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers that the practice of law is not a license to harass, intimidate, or threaten opposing counsel. In Roque v. Balbin (A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018), the Court suspended a lawyer for two years for engaging in underhanded tactics against a fellow attorney and for repeatedly disobeying Court directives. The case serves as a clear warning that lawyers who resort to personal attacks and misuse legal processes will face severe disciplinary action.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr., counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, obtained a favorable judgment for his client. The defendant's counsel, Atty. Rizal P. Balbin, then took over the case on appeal.

Instead of pursuing legitimate remedies, Atty. Balbin allegedly began a campaign of harassment against Atty. Roque. He made telephone calls, sent text messages and emails not only to Atty. Roque but also to his friends and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and criminal suits. He also threatened to publicize these suits to damage Atty. Roque's reputation, taking advantage of the latter's "high profile" stature.

When the Court required Atty. Balbin to file his comment on the complaint, he repeatedly failed to do so despite multiple notices. The Court imposed fines and even ordered his arrest, but he continued to ignore the directives. Eventually, the Court dispensed with his comment and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Balbin should be administratively sanctioned for his conduct toward opposing counsel and his failure to comply with Court orders.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Balbin guilty of violating several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and suspended him from the practice of law for two years.

Violation of Canon 8: Harassing Opposing Counsel

The Court emphasized that lawyers are licensed officers of the court who must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Canon 8 of the CPR states: "A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel."

The Court quoted prior case law: "Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity, and civility. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action."

Atty. Balbin's conduct clearly violated this rule. Instead of availing of procedural remedies to contest the adverse ruling, he resorted to personal attacks and threats against opposing counsel. The Court noted that the aim of every lawsuit is to render justice according to law, not to harass the parties.

Violation of Canon 19: Misuse of Legal Processes

The Court also found that Atty. Balbin's threats to file baseless administrative and criminal complaints violated Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR. Rule 19.01 provides that 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."

The Court explained that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. Filing or threatening to file unfounded cases to compel adversaries to withdraw their own cases is a clear misuse of legal processes.

Violation of Canons 11 and 12: Disrespect for the Courts

Finally, the Court found that Atty. Balbin's failure to file his comment despite obtaining extensions and ignoring Court orders violated Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR. These provisions require lawyers to respect the courts, assist in the speedy administration of justice, and not unduly delay cases.

The Court stressed that its orders are not mere requests. The obstinate refusal to comply with them betrays a recalcitrant flaw in a lawyer's character and underscores disrespect for the lawful orders of the Court.

The Penalty

The Court increased the IBP's recommended penalty of one year to two years of suspension, citing similar cases where lawyers who made personal attacks against opposing counsel were suspended for two years. The Court sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Avoid harassing tactics. Lawyers must treat opposing counsel with courtesy, fairness, and candor. Personal attacks, threats, and intimidation are grounds for disciplinary action.
• Use proper remedies, not threats. If a ruling is adverse, file the appropriate appeal or motion. Threatening baseless suits to gain leverage violates the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath.
• Respect the courts. Court orders are not requests. Failure to comply, especially after obtaining extensions, constitutes disrespect and can lead to fines, arrest, and suspension.
• The duty is to justice, not just the client. A lawyer's zeal must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Unfair tactics tarnish the profession and invite severe sanctions.
• Disciplinary cases can proceed without a comment. Ignoring an administrative complaint does not make it go away; the Court may dispense with the comment and decide based on the available records.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.