Facts of the Case:

Sophia Alawi is a sales representative of EB Villarosa & Partners, Co. Ltd. Of Davao
City, while Ashari Alauya is an incumbent executive clerk of court of 4 th Judicial Sharia
District in Marawi City.
Alawi and Alauya were classmates and friends. Through Alawis agency, a contract was
executed for the purchase on instalments by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging
to the abovementioned firm. Thereafter, a housing loan was granted to Alauya by the
National HOME MORTGAGE Finance Corporation (NHMFC). On December 15, 1995,
Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa and Co. advising the termination
of contract with the company, on the ground that Alauyas consent was vitiated by gross
misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by sales agent
which makes the contract void ab initio.
Alauya also wrote to Vice President of Credit and Collection Group of National HOME
MORTGAGE Finance Corp. (NHMFC) repudiating as fraudulent and void his contract with
Villarosa & Co. and asking for a cancellation of his housing loan.
Alauya also wrote to Ms. Corazon Ordonez, Head of Fiscal Management and Budget Office, and
to the Chief, Finance Division of Supreme Court to stop deductions from his salary.
Alawi filed on SC a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996, to which she appended a copy of
the letter and accused Alauya of:

Imputation of libellous charges with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance

and evident bad faith.

Causing undue injury.

Unauthorized enjoyment of free postage.

Usurpation of the title attorney which only regular members of the Philippine Bar
may use.

Alauya thereafter claims that Alawi was only envious of him for being an Executive Clerk of Court but
also a scion of a Royal Family. He also claimed that Alawi falsified his signature.
As with the use of the title attorney, he justified it by assertion that it is synonymous
with Counsellors-at-Law. He preferred to use attorney because counsellor is often mistaken for
councillor.

Issue:

Whether or not Alauya is guilty of libellous charges without solid grounds through bad faith.

Whether or not Alauya is entitled to use the appellation attorney.

Court Ruling:
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A.
6713) enunciates the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service. Public officials and employees must at all times respect
the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.
The conduct of behaviour of every official and employee of an agency involved in administration
of justice from presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with heavy burden of
responsibility.
He must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
As to Alauyas usurpation of the title attorney, the Court has declared that persons
who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledge members of the Philippine bar. His
disinclination to use the title counsellor does not warrant his use of the title attorney.

In In re Meling, the Court said that the title attorney is reserved only to those, who,
having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing, and it is they who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.