EN BANC
|
FOODSPHERE,
INC., Complainant, - versus - Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7199
[Formerly CBD 04-1386] Present: PUNO, C.J. QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN,
JJ. Promulgated: July
22, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation
engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture and distribution of
canned goods and grocery products under the brand name “CDO,” filed a Verified
Complaint[1]
for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly
known as “Batas Mauricio” (respondent), a writer/columnist of tabloids
including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television
program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast
over UNTV and of a radio program Double
B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2)
violation of lawyer’s oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to
investigating prosecutors.
The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint
are as follows:
On June 22, 2004, a certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero)
purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a
can of CDO Liver spread. On June 27,
2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread,
they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside
the can.
Cordero’s wife thus filed a complaint with the
Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory examination confirmed the presence
of parasites in the Liver spread.
Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order
No. 1, Series of 1993, the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27,
2004 during which the spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from
complainant. Complainant refused to heed
the demand, however, as being in contravention of company policy and, in any
event, “outrageous.”
Complainant instead offered to return actual medical
and incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos as long as they were supported
by receipts, but the offer was turned down.
And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the attention of the
media.
Complainant was later required by the BFAD to file
its Answer to the complaint. In the meantime or on August 6, 2004,
respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of the front page of the would-be
August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid
Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 12[2]
which complainant found to contain
articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its
products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless complainant gave
in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon
reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent
turned it down.
Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for P50,000,
P15,000 of which would go to the Corderos and P35,000 to his Batas
Foundation. And respondent directed
complainant to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television
program.
The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN[3] seeking the withdrawal of their
complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus
dismissed the complaint.[4] Respondent, who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in
one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.
On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an
Advertising Contract[5]
asking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for its next 24 weekly issues at P15,000
per issue or a total amount of P360,000, and a Program Profile[6]
of the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG
BATAS also asking complainant to place spot advertisements with the
following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at P4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at P7,700;
and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-second TVC for P130,000.
As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy
three full-page advertisements in the tabloid amounting to P45,000 at P15,000
per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second TVC in the television program
at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Acting on complainant’s
offer, respondent relayed to it that he and his Executive Producer were
disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of
the articles/columns.[7]
On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program
Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB, announced the
holding of a supposed contest sponsored by said program, which announcement was
transcribed as follows:
“OK,
at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas
Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag
kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa
susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, ‘aling liver spread ang may uod?’
Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot
kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong companya ang gumagawa
nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553.
Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang
mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa
Pilipinas an[g] may uod? [8] (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
And respondent wrote in his
columns in the tabloids articles which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004
issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned “KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!” In
another article, he wrote “IBA PANG
PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!”[9]
which appeared in the same publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication, its September
14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article entitled “DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO.”[10]
Respondent continued his tirade against
complainant in his column LAGING HANDA
published in another tabloid, BAGONG
TIKTIK, with the following articles:[11]
(a) “Uod sa liver spread,” Setyembre 6,
2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276);[12]
(b) “Uod, itinanggi ng CDO,” Setyembre
7, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277);[13]
(c) “Pagpapatigil sa CDO,” Setyembre 8, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.278);[14]
(d) “Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado,”
Setyembre 9, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.279);[15]
(e) “Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod,” Setyembre 10, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.280);[16]
(f) “Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy,” Setyembre 11, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.281);[17]
(g) “Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO
guards,” Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.284);[18]
(h) “Brutalidad ng CDO guards,” Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.285);[19]
(i) “CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP,”
Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287);[20]
(j) “May uod na CDO liver spread sa
Puregold binili,” Setyembre 18, 2004
(Taon 7, Blg.288);[21]
(k) “Desperado na ang CDO,” Setyembre
20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290);[22]
(l) “Atty. Rufus Rodriguez pumadrino sa
CDO,” Setyembre 21, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg.
291);[23] (m)
“Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero,” Setyembre 22, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 292);[24] (n) “Bakit
nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO,” Setyembre
23, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 293).[25]
In his September 8, 2004 column “Anggulo
ng Batas” published in Hataw!,
respondent wrote an article “Reaksyon pa
sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread.”[26]
And respondent, in several episodes in
September 2004 of his television program Kakampi
Mo ang Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly complained of what complainant
claimed to be the “same baseless and malicious allegations/issues” against it.[27]
Complainant thus filed criminal
complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to
Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at he time of the
filing of the present administrative complaint.[28]
In the criminal complaints pending
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S.
Nos. V-04-2917-2933, respondent filed his Entry
of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department
of Justice,[29]
alleging:
x x x x
2.N. The
question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of
the City Prosecutor of
x x x x
2.R.
Can an ordinary person like Villarez
simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to happen?
2.S.
Why? How much miracle is needed to
happen here before this Office would ever act on his complaint?
x x x x
8.
With a City Prosecutor acting the way he
did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor
virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief Prosecutor, can
Respondents expect justice to be meted to them?
9.
With utmost due respect, Respondents
have reason to believe that justice would elude them in this Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice of their cause,
but, more importantly, because of the injustice of the system;
10.
Couple all of these with reports that
many a government office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient of
too many generosities in the past of the Complainant, and also with reports
that a top official of the City had campaigned for his much coveted position in
the past distributing products of the Complainant, what would one expect the
Respondents to think?
11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is
the attitude and behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings of this
Office to people who dare complain against the Complainant in their respective
turfs. Perhaps, top officials of this Office should investigate and ask their
associates and relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis only,
complaints against the Complainant, and they would surely be given the same
rough and insulting treatment that Respondent Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping
charge here;[30]
And
in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of Jurisdiction[31]
which respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of
the newspaper Hataw!, before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent alleged:
x x x x
5. If
the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is
inside their thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced that this Office
has no jurisdiction over this action.[32]
(Emphasis supplied)
x x x x
Meanwhile, on
The pending cases against him and the issuance of a
status quo order notwithstanding, respondent
continued to publish articles against complainant[34]
and to malign complainant through his television shows.
Acting on the present administrative complaint, the Investigating
Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) came up with the
following findings in his October 5, 2005 Report and Recommendation:[35]
I.
x x x x
In Civil Case No. 249-V-04 entitled
“Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. [Melanio] Mauricio, et al.”, the Order dated 10
December 2004 (Annex O of the Complaint) was issued by Presiding Judge Dionisio
C. Sison which in part
reads:
“Anent the plaintiff’s prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order included in the instant plaintiff’s
motion, this Court, inasmuch as the defendants failed to appear in court or
file an opposition thereto, is constrained to GRANT the said plaintiff’s
prater, as it is GRANTED, in order to maintain STATUS QUO, and that all the
defendants, their agents, representatives or any person acting for and in
behalf are hereby restrained/enjoined from further publishing, televising
and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case
more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and
its products.”
Complainant alleged that the above-quoted
Order was served on respondent by the Branch Sheriff on 13 December 2004.
Respondent has not denied the issuance of the Order dated
Despite his receipt of the Order dated 10
December 2004, and the clear directive therein addressed to him to desists [sic] from “further publishing,
televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the
instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on
plaintiff and its products”, respondent in clear defiance of this Order came
out with articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column “Atty. Batas”,
2004 in the December 16 and 17, 2004 issues of the tabloid “Balitang Bayan –Toro”
(Annexes Q and Q-1 of the Complaint).
The above actuations of respondent are also in
violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility which
reads: “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.”
II.
x x x x
In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent filed
his “Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases To
the Department of Justice”. In said pleading, respondent made the following
statements:
x x x x
The above language employed by respondent
undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City
Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality
and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not
even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The
use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative
of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: “A
lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he
[c]ourts [a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n
[s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers.”
III.
The
“Kasunduan” entered into by the Spouses Cordero and herein complainant (Annex C
of the Complaint) was admittedly prepared, witnessed and signed by herein
respondent. …
x
x x x
In
its Order dated 16 August 2004, the Bureau of Food and Drugs recognized that
the said “Kasunduan” was not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order and policy, and this accordingly dismissed the complaint filed by the
Spouses Cordero against herein complainant.
However,
even after the execution of the “Kasunduan” and the consequent dismissal of
the complaint of his clients against herein complainant, respondent
inexplicably launched a media offensive intended to disparage and put to
ridicule herein complainant. On record are the numerous articles of
respondent published in 3 tabloids commencing from 31 August to
Respondent
claims that he was prompted by his sense of public service, that is, to expose
the defects of complainant’s products to the consuming public. Complainant
claims that there is a baser motive to the actions of respondent. Complainant
avers that respondent retaliated for complainant’s failure to give in to
respondent’s “request” that complainant advertise in the tabloids and
television programs of respondent. Complainant’s explanation is more credible.
Nevertheless, whatever the true motive of respondent for his barrage of articles
against complainant does not detract from the fact that respondent
consciously violated the spirit behind the “Kasunduan” which he himself
prepared and signed and submitted to the BFAD for approval. Respondent was
less than forthright when he prepared said “Kasunduan” and then turned around
and proceeded to lambaste complainant for what was supposedly already settled
in said agreement. Complainant would have been better of with the BFAD case
proceeding as it could have defended itself against the charges of the Spouses
Cordero. Complainant was helpless against the attacks of respondent, a media
personality. The actuations of respondent constituted, to say the least,
deceitful conduct contemplated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.[36] (Underscoring supplied)
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No.
XVIII-2006-114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of law
for two years.
The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP
well-taken.
The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize
the necessity for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession,[37]
which confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar.
By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to
refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful
conduct by, inter alia, taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest – to obtain
funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements
for the tabloids and his television program.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates:
A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
For
despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status
quo order restraining/enjoining
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and
its products. At the same time, respondent
violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.” For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal
profession to “obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities.”
Further, respondent violated Canon
8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, viz:
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,
by using intemperate language.
Apropos is the
following reminder in Saberon v. Larong:[38]
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our
legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit
of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
However, 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.
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members
of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.[39] (Underscoring supplied)
By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with
the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to “at
all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.”[40]
The power of the media to form or influence public
opinion cannot be underestimated. In Dalisay
v. Mauricio, Jr.,[41] the therein
complainant engaged therein-herein respondent’s services as “she was impressed
by the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a media personality,”[42]
only to later find out that after he demanded and the therein complainant paid
an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor any pleadings prepared by him. Respondent was suspended for six months.
On reading the articles respondent published, not to
mention listening to him over the radio and watching him on television, it
cannot be gainsaid that the same could, to a certain extent, have affected the
sales of complainant.
Back to Dalisay, this Court, in denying therein-herein
respondent’s motion for reconsideration, took note of the fact that respondent
was motivated by vindictiveness when he filed falsification charges against the
therein complainant.[43]
To the Court, suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for three years is, in the premises, sufficient.
WHEREFORE, Atty.
Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and breach of ethics of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is warned that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let
a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal record and copies furnished
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator
for dissemination to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo (Vol. I of the CBD rollo), pp. 1-21.
[2] Annex “B” of the complaint, id. at 23.
[3] Annexes “C” and “C-1,” id. at 24-25.
[4] Annex “F,” id at 29. The Order reads:
Before us is a “Kasunduan” dated 10 August 2004 duly signed by the parties praying that the above-entitled case be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that they have agreed to settle their differences amicably.
The Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative
Order No. 1 s. 1993, the “Rules and Regulations Implementing the provisions of
Chapter III[,] Title V of RA 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the
The agreement of the parties is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and policy.
PRESCINDING FROM THE FOREGOING, the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED.
x x x x
[5] Annex “D,” id. at 26.
[6] Annexes “E” and “E-1,” id. at 27-28.
[7] Id. at 7.
[8] Id. at 8.
[9] Annex “G-1,” id. at 32-33.
[10] Annex “G-2,” id. at 34-35.
[11] Attached to the complaint as Annexes “H-series.”
[12] Rollo (Vol. I of the CBD rollo), p. 37.
[13] Id. at 38.
[14] Inadvertently not attached to the Annexes “H-series.”
[15] Rollo (Vol. I of the CBD rollo), at 39.
[16] Id. at 40.
[17] Id. at 41.
[18] Id. at 42.
[19] Id. at 43.
[20] Id. at 44.
[21] Id. at 45.
[22] Id. at 46.
[23] Id. at 47.
[24] Id. at 48.
[25] Not attached but is supposedly included in the Annexes “H-series” of the complaint.
[26] Rollo (Vol. I of the CBD rollo), p. 49.
[27] Id. at 10. The copies of the complaint-affidavits are attached as Annexes “J,” “J-1,” and “J-2.”
[28] Ibid.
[29] Id. at 121-125.
[30] Id. at 122-124.
[31] Id. at 126-128.
[32] Id. at 126.
[33] The complaint was for “libel” but a reading of the complaint shows that it was a complaint for damages. Annex “L,” id. at 129-164.
[34] Respondent wrote and publicized: “Buwelta sa
[35] Rollo (Vol. III of CBD rollo), pp. 37-41.
[36] Id. at 45-48.
[37] Catu v. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 209, 221.
[38] A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 359.
[39] Id. at 368.
[40] Vide
Catu v. Rellosa, supra note 37 at 220.
[41] A.C. No. 5655,
[42] Id. at 509.
[43] A.C. No. 5655,