3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

 
*
A.C. No. 6396. October 25, 2005.

ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, complainant, vs.

ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Legal Ethics; By constantly

checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the
counsel of record of that case.— Respondent’s explanation that he
will enter his appearance in the case when its records were
already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the
counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the
parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his
will on the clerk of court. Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states: Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it

is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel. Through his acts of constantly checking the
transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent
deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of
record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good
faith.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

Same; Same; Same; In the course of his questionable activities

relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an
officer of the court. Not only was it ill-mannered but also
unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in
front of her subordinates.—In the course of his questionable
activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely
towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of
court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only
was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did
all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates. As held in
Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have realized
that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it.
These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01.
Same; Same; Same; Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.—Canon
8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the
dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly
and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct
themselves without reproach at all times.
Same; Same; Same; The highest reward that can be bestowed
on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.—The highest reward
that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained
by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives
despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity,
character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of
professional duty.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Unprofessional Conduct.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 3

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled

invectives at a Clerk of Court. Members of the bar decorum
must at all times comfort themselves in a manner befitting
their noble profession.
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed with
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated
1
Bar of the Philippines2 (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit with
supporting documents against respondent Atty. Virgil R.
Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of
Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 38 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The charge in the complaint is
summed up as follows:
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and
Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May
2003, respon-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-4.

2Id., at pp. 5-9.
3 CANON 7—A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated
bar.
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.
CANON 8—A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

dent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the

complete records of Civil Case No. 784, entitled Sps.
Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and
Felicidad Aberin, had already been remanded to the court
of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva
Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not the
counsel of record of either party in Civil Case No. 784.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

Complainant informed respondent that the record had

not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the
decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to
serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court
of origin. To this respondent retorted scornfully, “Who will
certify the Court of Appeals’ Decision, the Court of
Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go to
Manila to get a certified true copy?” Surprised at this
outburst, complainant replied, “Sir, it’s in the Rules but
you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to
be representing.” Respondent then replied, “Then you
should have notified me of the said requirement. That was
two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office
since then, but you never bothered to notify me.”
Complainant replied, “It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you
of the said requirement.”
Respondent then answered, “You mean to say it is not
your duty to remand the record of the case?” Complainant
responded, “No, Sir, I mean, it’s not our duty to notify you
that you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals’
decision.” Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano, “Kayat
mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay?” (“You mean
to say you don’t care anymore? Is that the way it is?”) He
then turned and left the office, banging the door on his way
out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud
it was heard by the people at the 4adjacent RTC, Branch 30
where a hearing was taking place.
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office,
still enraged, and pointed his finger at complainant and
shouted, “Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan
mo nga ibales kaniak ah!” (“Vulva of your mother! If you
are harboring ill feelings

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 2 and 5.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 5

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

against my client, don’t turn your ire on me!”) Complainant

was shocked at respondent’s words but still managed to
reply, “I don’t even know your client, Sir.” Respondent left
the office and as he passed by complainant’s window, he
again shouted, “Ukinnam
5
nga babai!” (“Vulva of your
mother, you woman!”)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the

incident, as it happened in her office of which she was, and
still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her
credibility had been tarnished and diminished, eliciting
doubt6 on her ability to command full respect from her
staff.
The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days 7
after the
incident, was supported by an Affidavit signed by
employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed
the incident. The Affidavit narrated the same incident as
witnessed by the said employees. A Motion to File
Additional Affidavit/Documentary 8Evidence was filed by
complainant on 25 September 2003. 9
On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued an Order
requiring respondent to submit his answer 10to the
complaint. Respondent submitted his Compliance dated
18 June 2003. Respondent explained that he was counsel
for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 847, entitled Sps.
Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin Castillano, et al.,
filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He
learned of the

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 3 and 6.

6 Id., at p. 3.
7 Id., at pp. 5-6. It is signed by Carmelita E. Caoile, Thelma R. Moya,
Nestor L. Rojo, William F. Jandoc and Jovencio Guyod. The names of
Ruben Panganiban and Eliezer Ordonez are affixed on the Affidavit but do
not bear their signatures. An attached Explanation, Id., at p. 7, clarifies
that Ruben Panganiban did not sign the Affidavit as he did not witness
the whole incident, having left the office during the height thereof. Eliezer
Ordonez, on the other hand, was able to observe the whole incident but
was out of the province at the time of filing of the complaint and was
therefore unable to sign the Affidavit.
8 Id., at pp. 79-93.
9 Id., at p. 47.
10 Id., at pp. 48-53.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847 before the
lower court. Prior to the incident, he went to the office of

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

the complainant to request for the transmittal of the

records of the case to the MCTC and the complainant
reassured him of the same.
Respondent admits having inquired about the status of
the transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003. However, he
has no explanation as to what transpired on that day.
Instead, he narrates that on 25 May 2003, twelve days
after the incident, the records had not yet been
transmitted, and he subsequently learned that these
records were returned to the court of origin.
The hearing for the administrative complaint before the
CBD was set on 25 September 2003 by the Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. However, on said
date, only complainant appeared. The latter 11
also moved
that the case be submitted for resolution. Respondent
later on filed a Manifestation stating that the reason for his
non-appearance was because he was still recuperating from
physical injuries and that he was not mentally fit to
prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle was rained
with bullets on 19 August 2003. He also expressed his
public apology 12
to the complainant in the same
Manifestation.
Complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire
not to appear on the next hearing date in view of
respondent’s public apology, adding that respondent
personally13
and humbly asked for forgiveness which she
accepted.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other
complaint for breach of 14his professional duties shall be
dealt with more severely. The IBP

_______________

11 TSN, 25 September 2005, p. 11; Rollo, p. 105. See also Order dated 25
September 2003, Id., at p. 94.
12 Id., at p. 107.
13 Id., at p. 111.
14 The Report and Recommendation was filed with the IBP by the
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. Id., at pp. 115-117.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 7

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and

approving the recommendation of the Investigating
15
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474
15
Commissioner.
At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not
the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. Had he been
counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to
present the required certified true copy of the decision of
the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to
procure a certified true copy of the decision since the Court
of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record
a duplicate original or certified true copy of its decision.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the
case when its records were already transmitted to the
MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and
there being no authorization from either the parties to
represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will
on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states:

Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach

upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it
is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of

the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately
encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record
of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good
faith.
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities
relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely
towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the
clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of
invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also
unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman
and in front of her subordinates. 16
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent
ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can
only bring down

_______________

15 Id., at p. 114.
16 441 Phil. 514; 393 SCRA 247 (2002).

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

the legal profession17 in the public estimation and erode

public respect for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8
and Rule 8.01, to wit:

Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely

reflect on his fitness to practice law, now shall he, whether in
public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
Canon 8—A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow
lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of
the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and
candidly towards each other and otherwise 18
conduct
themselves without reproach at all times.
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating
Commissioner, respondent did not categorically deny the
charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy
narration of the prefatory facts of the case as well as of the
incident on 5 May 2003.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit
that respondent’s uncharacteristic behavior was not an
isolated incident. He has supposedly done the same to
Attys. Abraham Johnny G. Asuncion and Temmy Lambino,
the latter having 19filed a case against respondent pending
before this Court. We, however, cannot acknowledge such
allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity of such
claim. No affidavits to that effect were submitted by either
Atty. Asuncion or Atty. Lambino.

_______________

17 Id., at p. 520; p. 251.

18 Id., at p. 519; p. 250, citing De Ere v. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617 (1999).
19 Id., at p. 3.

VOL. 474, OCTOBER 25, 2005 9

Dallong-Galicinao vs. Castro

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered

owing to the fact that respondent had apologized to the
complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to
say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his
actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of
the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards.
The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and
words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear
the consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is
the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be
purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or
contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite
conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity,
character, brains and20
skills in the honorable performance
of professional duty.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is
hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND
(P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar
infraction with be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of
this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant for
appropriate annotation in the record of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez and Callejo,

Sr., JJ.,concur.
     Chico-Nazario, J.,On Leave.

Respondent meted with P10,000.00 fine, with warning

against repetition of similar infraction.

Note.—A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for

misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in
honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court. (Calub vs. Suller, 323
SCRA 556 [2000])

——o0o——

_______________

20 Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 107; 405 SCRA 212, 219
(2003) citing AGPALO, LEGAL ETHICS (1989), p. 95.

10

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 474

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e44c5aa420d67a24003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10