JOHNNY NG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR, Respondent. Adm. Case No.

7252 November 22, 2006

Nature of the case: A verified complaint filed by Johnny Ng (complainant) against Atty.
Benjamin C. Alar (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission
on Bar Discipline (CBD), for the latter’s Disbarment in which the IBP Board of Governors
submitted to the Supreme Court its Resolution No. XVII-2006-223 dated April 27, 2006 for
consideration.

SC Decision: The Court finds respondent Atty. Benjamin C. Alar GUILTY of violation of
Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and shall pay a fine of ₱5,000.00
with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely. The Counter-Complaint against Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and Atty. Elvin
Michael Cruz is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Legal Doctrine:

Canon 8 - a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Canon 11 – a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a labor case filed by the employees of the Ng Company against
its employers. The employees alleged that they did not receive their service incentive leave pay
from their employers due to the latter’s claim that the employees conducted a strike at the
Company’s premises which hampered its ingress and egress. The case was referred to the
labor arbiter and the latter found that the employees have been paid their service incentive
leave pay. The employees appealed to NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision.

In reaction to this, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI)
where respondent used scandalous, offensive, and menacing languages to support his
complaint. He said that the labor arbiter was cross-eyed in making his findings of fact and that
Commissioner Dinopol acted in the same manner with malice thrown in when he adopted the
findings of the labor arbiter. That the retiring commissioners of NLRC circumvent the law and
jurisprudence when the money claim involved in the case is substantial. According to
respondent, such acts constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Because of the MRMI, complainant filed a disbarment case with IBP’s Commission on
Bar Discipline against respondent wherein it was alleged that the latter violated certain codes
and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, respondent allegedly violated
Canons 8 and 11 wherein a lawyer is prohibited from using scandalous, oppressive, offensive,
and malicious language against an opposing counsel and before the courts.

In his defense, respondent argues that he did not violate any of the canons found in the
Code because 1) the NLRC is not among the courts referred to in the rules; 2) the
Commissioners therein are not judges; and 3) the complainants in labor cases are entitled to
some latitude of righteous anger. Attached to respondent’s counter-complaint is an affidavit
made by the union president Batan alleging that the lawyers of the complainant are the ones
who violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when they filed multiple suits arising from
the same cause of action and when they deliberately lessened the number of complainants in
the labor case.

The findings of the Commission on Bar discipline led the IBP to conclude that
respondent is guilty of violating Canons 8 and 11, while the lawyers of the complainant did not
violate any canons of the Code. It recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern
warning that severe penalties will be imposed in case a similar conduct will be committed again.

ISSUE

W/N respondent violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD

YES. Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. His actions erode the public’s perception of the legal profession. The MRMI
contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and intellectual
integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence.
Respondent used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit any
justification.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary language is
proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration.

However, the penalty of reprimand with stern warning imposed by the IBP Board of
Governors is not proportionate to respondent’s violation of the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thus, he deserves a stiffer penalty of fine in the amount of
P5,000.00.