Facts: Petitoners Torres and Celestino allege that herein Respondent made statements/remarks in the

pleadings he filed in a petition to audit all funds of the UEFA, as counsel for therein petitioners including
his wife who was president of UEFA, against herein Petitioners. Also in another labor case against the
same complainant Atty. Torres.

The complaint sets forth 3 causes of action against respondent.

1.) Based on respondent’s “Urgent Motion to Expedite with Manifestation and Reiteration of Position”
in this motion, complainants allege that this motion contained statements which are absolutely false,
unsubstantiated and with malicious imputation of crimes of robbery, theft of UEFA’s funds, destruction
or concealment of UEFA’s documents and some other acts tending to cause dishonour, discredit or
contempt upon other persons.

Complainant’s aver that respondent violated the attorney’s oath that he “obey the laws” and “do no
falsehood”, the CPR particularly Rule 10.01 and Rule 138 pargraph 20 (f) of the ROC for directly pointing
to them as the persons who intentionally committed the robbery at the UEFA office, and for citing the
Andersen/Enron case which is irrelevant and immaterial to the subject of this case.

2. Complainants allege that in the attorney’s fees case, respondent in his “Reply to Respondents
Answer/Commment” used language that was clearly abusive, offensive and improper.

3. And that the respondent’s statement is demeaning to the integrity of the legal profession and the
same might shrink the degree of confidence and trust reposed by the public.

Respondent contends and professes that he only used those kinds of language against Atty. Torres
because he was angry when it came to his knowledge that Atty. Torres had been spreading rumors
implicating his clients including his wife to the burglary.

Respondent also contends that it was his duty to inform the BLR of the loss of the vital documents so
the resolution of the pending motion would be expedited.

Respondent adds that Atty. Torres had the habit of hurling baseless accusation against his wife to
embarrass her. And that in the attorney’s fees case, Atty. Torres accused his client Prof. Maguidad, of
forging the signature of a notary public.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating any of the rules in the CPR and or the lawyer’s
oath.

Held: IBP commissioner found Respondent guilty of using inappropriate and offensive remarks in his
pleading. Which was adopted by the IBP Board of governors.

The Supreme Court also affirms the decision of the IBP but not its recommendation to reprimand him.

For the first cause of action, the Supreme Court held that the imputation may indeed be false but it
could indeed possibly prompt the BLR to speed up the resolution of the audit case.
For the second cause of action, Supreme Court ruled that even though it is true that he was irked by
Atty. Torres’ answer to the complaint in the attorney’s fees case wherein he criticized respondent’s
wife’s performance as president, whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients should not
influence counsel in their conduct toward each other. The language vehicle does not run short of
expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convinving but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.

As to the last cause of action, while it may detract from the dignity that should characterize the legal
profession and the solemnity of a notarial document, respondent, who justifies the same as legitimate
defense of his client who was being accused by Atty. Torres of forgery, may, given the relevance of the
statement to the subject matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of the doubt.

Supreme Court suspended respondent for 1 month and is sternly warned.