Legal & Judicial Ethics, M.P.Lacsie, 2015 pg.

Canon 8 A Lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations to one another. These include observance of
honorable, candid and courteous dealings with other lawyers and fidelity to known and recognized customs and
practices of the bar that make the practice of law a profession. (Ethics by Agpalo, 2009 Edition Pg. 107)
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Language roots from the principles we stand for. And it manifest whenever we utter the words of legal and righteous
wisdom. However, the harassment and abusive words are not the language of justice. Those are the words of
uncivilized men. It is not within the sphere of upright man who can steadily uphold the integrity and dignity of the bar.
Thus, members must embody the courtesy, discipline with caution on his dealings, speeches, expression in all form of
communication. Our external acts demonstrates our purest commitment to our oath.
In Saberon Vs. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with
countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.
In Noble III Vs. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his
brother Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were conveyed privately. To the Court's mind,
however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign and
annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Xxx it must be emphasized that membership in
the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's
opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe such conduct of nobility and uprightness which should
remain with them, whether in their public or private lives, and may be disciplined in the event their conduct falls short
of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in this case, it is inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed
to Orlando's brother in private. As a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect in his words,
being fully aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is owed. It was hi ghly
improper for Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino to his client. xxx Indulging in offensive personalities in the
course of judicial proceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.
In Barandon Vs. Ferrer, A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010:
Atty.
Ferrer said, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya.
Wala na
palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado narito ay mga taga- Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa
Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito. Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and
discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in
court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The Court cannot countenance it. xxx Though a
lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum. Atty. Ferrer 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. Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by
the way he chose to express his indignation.
In Buatis Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 142509, March 24, 2006 the Court treated a lawyer's use of the words "lousy,"
"inutile," "carabao English," "stupidity," and "satan" in a letter addressed to another colleague as defamatory and
injurious which effectively maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the opposing
counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.
Castillo Vs. Padilla, Jr., A.C. No. 2339, February 24, 1984, at the hearing of the case on November 19, 1981, while
complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say "bobo." When complainant turned toward
respondent, he saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of
many people, complainant was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence. The court proceedings had to be
suspended.
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo"
was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the
latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the
court. By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a
member of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach because this is not the first time that respondent
has employed offensive language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to refrain
from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings.