Respondent lawyer took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return

the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them T h e l a w y e r o f a T a i w a n e s e i n v e s t o r , i n a c a s e f o r estafa filed against an investor from East Asia r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t l a w y e r . S i n c e h i s c l i e n t f a i l e d t o a p p e a r d u r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y investigation of the case nor did he submit his counter affidavit, the prosecutor handling the case filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the Manila RTC. The Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest against his client. Thereafter, respondent lawyer filed a n u r g e n t m o t i o n t o Quash the Warrant of A r r e s t . H e a l s o f i l e d w i t h t h e R T C o f Zamboanga City, the place of the 2 clients mothballed joint venture, a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as the dissolutionof a business venture against the Taiwanese investor and its lawyer as well as the prosecutor. When confronted by the impleaded lawyer, respondent lawyer explained that it was his client who had decided to institute the civil action against him. He also claimed that he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if co m p l a i n a n t w o u l d m o v e f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e e s t a f a c a s e . In the case of Atty. Ramon Reyes v. Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148,July 1 , 2 0 0 3 , Panganiban). Respondent lawyer failed to live up to Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The said canon provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Respondents actions do not measure up to Canon 8 as it appears that he took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client. He should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies if had believed that the opposing lawyer and the prosecutor in the criminal case had conspired to act illegally. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action. Any undue ill feelings between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Considering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him to the obligation that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as well as the abovequoted Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years