Roque v. Balbin

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

For the Court's resolution is a verified complaint/affidavit1 dated March 1, 2006 filed before the Court by complainant Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. (complainant) against respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin (respondent) praying that the latter be subjected to disciplinary action for his alleged unprofessional conduct. The Facts Complainant alleged that he was the plaintiff's counsel in a case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem, docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-307 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 77 (MeTC). Shortly after securing a favorable judgment for his client,2 herein respondent-as counsel for the defendant, and on appeal-started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously threatening complainant into withdrawing the case filed by his client.

According to complainant, respondent would make various telephone calls and send text messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to his friends and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and/or criminal suits against him. Further, and in view of complainant's "high profile" stature, respondent also threatened to publicize such suits in order to besmirch and/or destroy complainant's name and reputation.3 Initially, respondent moved for an extension of time to file his comment,4 which was granted by the Court.5 However, respondent failed to file his comment despite multiple notices, prompting the Court to repeatedly fine him and even order his arrest.6 To date, the orders for respondent's arrest7 remain unserved and are still standing.8 Eventually, the Court dispensed with respondent's comment and forwarded e records to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its investigation, report, and recommendation.9 The IBP's Report and Recommendation In a Report and Recommendation10 dated August 3, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable, and accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions in the future shall merit more severe sanctions.11 The Investigating Commissioner found that instead of availing of the procedural remedies to assail the adverse MeTC ruling in order to further his client's cause, respondent resorted to crudely underhanded tactics directed at the opposing litigant's counsel, i.e., herein complaint, by personally attacking the latter through various modes of harassment and intimidation.

According to the Investigating Commissioner, such acts constitute a gross violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and the fact that respondent failed to cow complainant into submission cannot mitigate his liability as the same reveals respondent's distastefully disturbing moral character.12 In a Resolution13 dated May 27, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report and recommendation in toto. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of. The Court's Ruling Lawyers are licensed officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.

Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.14 To this end, Canon 8 of the CPR commands, to wit: CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.