Case Digest:

Alawi vs. Alauya

- Marie Elise A. Antonio

Facts of the Case:

Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. (a
real estate and housing company) of Davao City while Ashari M. Alauya was the
incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Sharia District in Marawi
City. A contract was executed between Alauya and Villarosa & Co. for the
purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa & Co.
through Alawis agency. 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 &
Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the company on grounds of
vitiated consent. He also sent letters dated December 15, 1996, February 21,
1996, April 15, 1996 and May 3, 1996 to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President,
Credit & Collection Group of NHMFC asking for the cancellation of his housing
loan repudiating that his contract with Villarosa & Co. was fraudulent and void.
Furthermore, he also wrote on January 18, 1996 to Ms. Corazon M. Ordon ez,
Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance
Division of the attendant court to stop deductions from his salary in relation to
the said load asserting the anomalous manner by which he was duped into
entering the above-mentioned contracts.

On May 1996, the NHMFC wrote to the Supreme Court requesting the stoppage of
the deductions from Alauyas salary and began negotiating with Villarosa & Co.
for the mortgage buy-back and payment refunds.

Complainants Side:

Upon learning of Alauyas letter to Villarosa & Co. on December 15, 1995, Sophia
Alawi filed a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996, attached with a copy of
Alauyas letter and the envelope marked with the words Free Postate PD 26,
stating the following accusation:

a. Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through

manifest ignorance and evident bad faith;
b. Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation;
c. Unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage; and,
d. Usurpation of the title of attorney.

Alawi in her complaint deplored that Alauyas derogatory references to her

without any evidence was irresponsible and baseless. She asserted that all her
dealings with Alauya had been regular and completely transparent.

Respondents Side:
When the Court resolved to order Alauya to comment on the complaint through
the use of Notice of Resolution signed by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant
Division Clerk of Court, Alauya, in his Preliminary Comment, questioned Atty.
Marasigans authority to require an explanation of him and voiced suspicion of a
strong link between Alawi and Atty. Marasigans office. Alauya also averred that
the complaint had no factual basis and that Alawi was envious of his position and
his status.

In his subsequent comment, he stated that his acts were done in good faith and
within the confines of the law. He alleged that Alawi fraudulently bound him to a
housing loan contract entailing monthly deductions of 4,333.10 from his salary
by falsifying his signature. Also, in his June 5, 1996 comment, Alauya contended
that he suffered undue injury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings,
and untold financial suffering in consideration of the 26,028.00 deducted from
his salary for 6 months. He also declared that he gave 20.00 plus transportation
fare to his subordinate in order to mail his letter to Villarosa & Co. and the words
typewritten in the envelope was attached by another, as corroborated by the
affidavit of Absamen C. Domocao, Clerk IV, so the letter getting mixed with official
mail was a mistake. He also justified that his use of the title attorney is
synonymous with counselors-at-law and that his use of such title was to avoid
being mistaken as a local legislator.

He also alleged that his actions were expected of any man unduly prejudiced and
injured. He claimed that Alawi induced him to sign a blank contract with the
assurance of seeing the completed document, acquired his GSIS policy from his
wife, and forged his signature on documents pertinent to the contract.

Issue: Whether or not Alauya acted in a manner unbefitting of a Public Official.

Whether or not there is a usurpation of the title of attorney and unauthorized
use of the franking privilege by Alauya.

Held:

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. Section 4 of the Code commands
that public official 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.

Alauyas denounciation of Alawis acts using excessively intemperate, insulting or

virulent language, as it appeared to Court, was inconsistent with good morals,
good customs or public policy, or respect for the rights of others. As a public
official, the law required that in his exercise of his right of action against Alawi,
Alauya act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith. Righteous indignation or vindication of right cannot justify his use of
vituperative language, or downright name-calling. In addition, Alauyas use of the
title of attorney was a usurpation of the said title. The Court had already
declared that persons who pass the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of
the Philippine Bar. Alauyas disinclination to use the title counselor or
counselor-at-law do not warrant the use of the title attorney since only those
who have the necessary degree in law, passed the Bar Examinations an admitted
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are authorized to use the title. Lastly, with
regards to his unauthorized use of the franking privilege, the record contains no
evidence adequately establishing the accusation.

Ruling:

Ashari M. Alauya was reprimanded for the use of excessively intemperate,

insulting or virulent language unbecoming of a judicial officer and for usurping
the title of attorney. He was warned that any similar or other impropriety or
misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.