Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.

(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)



FACTS:
Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture
of canned goods of CDO filed an administrative complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr.
for violation of the code of professional responsibility. The case at hand involved a certainAlberto Cordero
who purportedly found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread byCDO and Foodsphere that he
bought from the grocery. The Cordero family sued the company forP150,000 for damages, but the
companies did not agree to the demands. The Corderos thereafter threatened to resort to the media, if
their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the Corderos, was involved in
various media productions such as being a writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS,
Bagong TIKTIK, TORO andHATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS
telecast overUNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty.Mauricio,
in many cases utilized these media outlets to place the said company in a bad light bydeclaring to the
masses the liver spread of worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressedto him to desist from
further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of theComplaint in the instant
case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products. Even after the
parties have performed an agreement, signed by the Corderosand Atty.Mauricio himself
resulting in the dismissal of the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio stillinexplicably launched a media offensive
to the companies.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His recourse tothe Media, even
after being told to desist from such was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon
13, A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending toarouse
public opinion for or against a party.
His action has put not only the companyFoodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also degraded the
dignity and authority of the legalsystem. Besides the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging
in deceitful conducttaking advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his own interests, and
Canon 8, whenhe used abusive and offensive language in his dealings.