Dajay, Doven Grace G.

JD 201 Judicial and Legal Ethics

Canete v Puti, A.C. No. 10949 [Formerly CBD Case no. 13-3915]

Facts:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint (complaint) filed by Carmelita Canete (Canete) against Atty. Artemio Puti (Atty. Puti)
1

with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In her complaint, Canete claimed that her husband was a victim in a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with double murder filed
against Atty. Puti's client. Canete averred that Atty. Puti had, in numerous occasions, appeared in court while he was intoxicated and
made discourteous and inappropriate remarks against the public and private prosecutors as well as the judge. 2

Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her private counsel, Atty. Arturo Tan (Atty. Tan), by calling him "bakla" in open court during the
hearing on May 9, 2013.

For his part, Atty. Puti prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against him. He denied ever appearing intoxicated in court. He also
9 10

claimed that it was Atty. Tan who provoked him when the latter made threats against him. According to him, it was his duty to call out
the judge for being biased and that he was only discharging his duties to his client by representing him with zeal.

Findings of the IBP

The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Puti liable for misconduct for violating
13

the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension for two (2) years from the practice of
law. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Puti failed to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his
professional colleagues. Further, his act of imputing bias on the judge was without basis and uncalled for. Furthermore, his act of
appearing at hearings while intoxicated was in utter disrespect to the court.

In Resolution No. XXI-2014-785, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, with modification:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and
finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for violation ofthe Lawyer's Oath,
Canon 8, Rule 10.01, 10.03, Canon 10 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Artemio Puti is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. 17

Based on the records, Atty. Puti did not file a motion for reconsideration despite receipt of the IBP Resolution.
18

Issue

1. Whether or not Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated in court

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopts the findings of the IBP, with modifications.

Canete filed the instant complaint against Atty. Puti for: 1) appearing in the hearings while drunk; 2) provoking and insulting the
prosecutors; and 3) disrespecting the court. These grounds shall be discussed in seriatim.

1. On the allegation that Atty. Puti appeared intoxicated in court on numerous occasions, Canete claimed that these were
witnessed by several court personnel, his co-counsels, and opposing counsels. Atty. Puti denied such claim and argued that
19

there is no evidence on record that he appeared in court while intoxicated. The Court agrees with Atty. Puti. It was not
20

sufficiently proven that Atty. Puti ever appeared at a court hearing while he was intoxicated - despite Canete's claim that the
same was witnessed by several persons. Thus, Atty. Puti cannot be held liable on this ground.

2. Regarding the second ground, the TSN of the hearings held at the trial court plainly show that Atty. Puti employed impertinent
and discourteous language towards the opposing counsels.

To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in a condescending manner. To be sure, the term "bakla" (gay) itself is not
derogatory. It is used to describe a male person who is attracted to the same sex. Thus, the term in itself is not a source of
1âшphi1

offense as it is merely descriptive. However, when "bakla" is used in a pejorative and deprecating manner, then it becomes
derogatory. Such offensive language finds no place in the courtroom or in another place for that matter. Atty. Puti ought to be
aware that using the term "bakla" in a derogatory way is no longer acceptable - as it should have been in the first place. Verily,
in Sy v. Fineza, the Court ruled that the respondent judge's act of ruling that a witness should not be given any credence
21

because he is a "bakla" was most unbecoming of a judge. 22

As against the public prosecutors, Atty. Puti made the following statement: "Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad
sa inyo. Such remark was clearly unprofessional, especially since Atty. Puti used to be a public prosecutor. By nonchalantly
accusing the prosecutors of having been bribed or otherwise acting for a valuable consideration, Atty. Puti overstepped the
bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor which he owes to the opposing counsels.

For his statements against the private and public prosecutors, Atty. Puti violated the following provisions under the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
 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.

3. As regards the final ground, the TSN of the May 22, 2013 hearing shows that Atty. Puti made several remarks against the
judge. Specifically, Atty. Puti stated in open court that the judge was abusing his discretion and implied that the judge was
partial and biased. Moreover, Atty. Puti threatened the judge that he would withdraw from the case and walk out if his request
was not granted. Again, such statements were improper.

While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to criticize the acts of courts and judges, the same must be made
respectfully and through legitimate channels. In this case, Atty. Puti violated the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03 -A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

As a defense, Atty. Puti claimed that he was merely doing his duty to call out the judge for being biased. He maintained that he
was only discharging his duties to his client by representing him with zeal. Such contention deserves scant consideration.

While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or
enthusiasm is disfavored. 25

On the penalty to be imposed, the Court disagrees with the IBP's recommendation that Atty. Puti be suspended from the practice of law
for six (6) months. While Atty. Puti is found to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspension from the practice of
law is not a commensurate penalty. The Court has consistently held that disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the most severe
forms of disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly proven serious
administrative charges. 26

Thus, while Atty. Puti is guilty of using inappropriate language against the opposing counsels and the judge, such transgression is not
of a grievous character as to merit his suspension since his misconduct is considered as simple rather than grave.

In Saberon v. Lorong, the Court meted the penalty of fine of ₱2,000.00 for a lawyer's use of intemperate language for referring to a
27

party's pleadings as "a series of blackmail suits." In Bacatan v. Dadula, the Court fined a lawyer for ₱2,000.00 for making unfounded
28

accusations of partiality, bias, and corruption against the prosecutor. More recently, in Quilendrino v. Icasiano, a lawyer
29

was reprimanded for violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 11, and Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

As applied to this case, the Court finds it best to temper the penalty for Atty. Puti's infraction. The Court also takes into consideration
that this is the first administrative case against Atty. Puti in his more than three decades in the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Artemio Puti GUILTY of violating Canons 8 and 11 and Rules 8.01, 11.03, and 11.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Court REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.