This document summarizes a court case regarding the duty of courtesy between lawyers. The case involved a lawyer (D) using foul language to describe the opposing counsel (M) in court pleadings, referring to M as "silahis" or bisexual. The court ruled that D's language was inappropriate and irrelevant to resolving the case, violating rules regarding courtesy between lawyers. The court held that D's actions constituted gross misconduct and warranted disciplinary action. Lawyers must defend clients vigorously but refrain from improper language unless relevant to the case.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the duty of courtesy between lawyers. The case involved a lawyer (D) using foul language to describe the opposing counsel (M) in court pleadings, referring to M as "silahis" or bisexual. The court ruled that D's language was inappropriate and irrelevant to resolving the case, violating rules regarding courtesy between lawyers. The court held that D's actions constituted gross misconduct and warranted disciplinary action. Lawyers must defend clients vigorously but refrain from improper language unless relevant to the case.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the duty of courtesy between lawyers. The case involved a lawyer (D) using foul language to describe the opposing counsel (M) in court pleadings, referring to M as "silahis" or bisexual. The court ruled that D's language was inappropriate and irrelevant to resolving the case, violating rules regarding courtesy between lawyers. The court held that D's actions constituted gross misconduct and warranted disciplinary action. Lawyers must defend clients vigorously but refrain from improper language unless relevant to the case.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the duty of courtesy between lawyers. The case involved a lawyer (D) using foul language to describe the opposing counsel (M) in court pleadings, referring to M as "silahis" or bisexual. The court ruled that D's language was inappropriate and irrelevant to resolving the case, violating rules regarding courtesy between lawyers. The court held that D's actions constituted gross misconduct and warranted disciplinary action. Lawyers must defend clients vigorously but refrain from improper language unless relevant to the case.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
TOPIC: Duty of the Lawyer to His Profession; Duty of Courtesy towards Fellow
Lawyers CITATION: A.C. No. 7594 TITLE: Malabed v De la Peña DATE: February 9, 2016 Lawyers are entitled to defend the client’s cause with vigor, but he must DOCTRINE: refrain from using improper language, if such language is not relevant to the case.
FACTS:
Malabed(M) filed an administrative complaint against De La Peña (D) for alleged
dishonesty, and repeated falsehoods that misled the court. Before the IBP, the Commissioner noted the foul language used by D in his pleadings. He described the opposing counsel as “silahis” (translated as bisexual in English) and he also stated that M was cohabiting with a married man before his wife died. According to the Commissioner, such foul language is a clear manifestation of D’s gross misconduct that affects his standing as an officer of the Court. ISSUES:
Whether D’s description of the opposing counsel as “silahis” warrants a disciplinary action, because it amounted to gross misconduct and lack of courtesy towards his fellow lawyers HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative. Rule 138, Section 27 provides that gross misconduct is one of the grounds to disbar or suspend attorneys. Further, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility(CPR) provides that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Here, aside from the language being inappropriate, it was irrelevant to the resolution of the case. The improper word was uttered in the same case where his moral fitness as an officer of the Court was being examined. It was not stated during a criminal, civil, or other case where the utterance of such word was needed to further his client’s cause. Hence, the act of D violated the CPR and it manifested his gross misconduct in dealing with his fellow lawyers. Lawyers are entitled to defend the client’s cause with vigor, but he must refrain from using improper language, if such language is not relevant to the case.
