Chua vs. Atty. De Castro Case Digest

Joseph C. Chua vs. Atty. Arturo M. De Castro

A.C. No. 10671. December 5, 2016

Facts

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by respondent Atty. Arturo M. De Castro (Atty. De Castro) of the Court's Resolution dated November 25, 2015 which found him liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and was meted out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

Chua alleged that his company, Nemar Computer Resources Corp. (NCRC) filed a collection case against Dr. Concepcion Aguila Memorial College, represented by its counsel Atty. De Castro. According to Chua, since the filing of the collection case on June 15, 2006, it took more than five (5) years to present one witness of NCRC due to Atty. De Castro's propensity to seek postponements of agreed hearing dates for unmeritorious excuses. Atty. De Castro's flimsy excuses would vary from simple absence without notice, to claims of alleged ailment unbacked by any medical certificates, to claims of not being ready despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the sending of a representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the case to seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without providing any reason therefore.

For his defense, Atty. De Castro countered that his pleas for continuance and resetting were based on valid grounds. Also, he pointed out that most of the resetting were [sic] without the objection of the counsel for NCRC, and that, certain resettings were even at the instance of the latter.

On April 16, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving with modification the Report and Recommendation of the CBD. The Board of Governors modified the penalty meted out to [Atty. De Castro] [by] reducing the period of suspension from six (6) months to three (3) months.

On November 25, 2015, the Court affirmed the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The Court held that Atty. De Castro violated his oath of office in his handling of the collection case filed against his client. Undaunted with the Court's ruling, Atty. De Castro filed the present motion for reconsideration. He strongly disputes the allegations of Chua averring that the long delay in the disposition of the collection case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was due to the several postponements which were found meritorious by the RTC.

Issue

Whether Atty. De Castro's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is proper.

Ruling

After a second hard look at the facts of the case, relevant laws, and jurisprudence, the Court finds merit in the motion for reconsideration. A lawyer indubitably owes fidelity to the cause of his clients, and is thus expected to serve the client with competence and utmost diligence. He is enabled to utilize every honorable means to defend the cause of his client and secure what is due the latter. Under the CPR, every lawyer is required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Upon careful consideration of the circumstances, the Court finds that the delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 7939 was not solely attributable to Atty. De Castro. The trial court itself, either at its own initiative or at the instance of Chua's counsel, allowed the delays. Consequently, if not all of such delays were attributable to Atty: De Castro's doing, it would be unfair to hold him solely responsible for the delays caused in the case. Moreover, it appears that the trial court granted Atty. De Castro's several motions for resetting of the trial; and that at no time did the trial court sanction or cite him for contempt of court for abuse on account of such motions. Verily, if his explanations for whatever delays he might have caused were accepted by the trial court without any reservations or conditions, there would be no legitimate grievance to be justly raised against him on the matter.

While Atty. De Castro's repeated requests for resetting and postponement of the trial of the case may be considered as contemptuous if there was a showing of abuse on his part, the Court, however, finds that Chua failed to show that Atty. De Castro was indeed moved to cause delays by malice, or dishonesty, or deceit, or grave misconduct as to warrant a finding of administrative liability against him. The operative phrase for causing delay in any suit or proceeding under Rule 1.03 is ''for any corrupt motive or interest." Considering that this matter concerned Atty. De Castro's state of mind, it absolutely behooved Chua to present sufficient evidence of the overt acts committed by Atty. De Castro that demonstrated his having deliberately intended thereby to do wrong or to cause damage to him and his business. That demonstration, however, was not made by Chua.

Notwithstanding the absence of malice, dishonesty, or ill motive, it is good to remind Atty. De Castro that as a member of the Bar, he is expected to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and to be more circumspect whenever seeking the postponements of cases.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Atty. Arturo M. De Castro is hereby GRANTED. The Court's Resolution dated November 25, 2015 is SET ASIDE. Atty. Arturo M. De Castro is ADMONISHED to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of his legal profession in his representation of the defendant in Civil Case No. 7939 in the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City.

Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra Case Digest

Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra

A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016

Facts

This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by complainant complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery.3 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.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:

Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client’s Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don’t kiss Belo’s ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No goons, No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!

Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio’s Big Bang on Friday -You will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles �� (September 22 at 11:18pm)

Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso … si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm

Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may ‘extra-legal’ budget yon. Kaya Lang, bistado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)

Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BA TCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NJYO AKO KUNG MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions …. (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx xxx xxx

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2551.

In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant. He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her, explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.

Issues:

1. Whether respondent can validly invoke his right to privacy.
2. Whether respondent can validlyn invoke freedom of speech.

SC Ruling

Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private account" that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus, when complainant accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

The defense is untenable. Before, can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity -in this case, Facebook -it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.

The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.

Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same -or other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile -will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following:

1. Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way";
2. A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
3. The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
4. A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.

Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Face book friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.

As to the second issue, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. 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.

A punctilious scrutiny of 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."

In view of the foregoing, 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.

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.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.