View full case

JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM v. ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA

FACTS:

The administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Judge Lacurom against respondent-spouses Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba. Judge Lacurom charged the respondents with violation of Rules 11.03, 11.04, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm represented plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution on 29 June 2001, reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Veneracion's counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Request for Inhibition) dated 30 July 2001, questioning the reversal and alleging errors committed by Judge Lacurom. In response, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to explain why she should not be held in contempt of court for the contents of the motion. Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any intentional disrespect towards the court and explained that she did not actively participate in the case.

The case involves a complaint filed by Judge Lacurom against Atty. Velasco-Jacoba and Atty. Jacoba before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for allegedly using offensive and derogatory remarks towards the judge during a court hearing. In response, Velasco-Jacoba explained that their remarks were a way of expressing their shock and disbelief at the sudden reversal of their client's fortune, and not meant to disrespect the judge personally. She also apologized for any mistake they may have made and agreed to have the alleged contemptuous phrases removed from the record. However, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt and sentenced her to five days imprisonment and a fine of P1,000. Velasco-Jacoba filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that she signed a pleading without reading it due to trust in her husband, who had drafted it. She also accused Judge Lacurom of having a personal vendetta against her. It was revealed that Veneracion, the parties' client, had filed criminal cases against Judge Lacurom. Judge Lacurom later filed another order, this time directing Atty. Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in contempt. Jacoba denied typing or preparing the motion and invoked the marital privilege rule. Judge Lacurom found Jacoba guilty of contempt and fined him P500. Subsequently, Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint before the IBP. The IBP Commissioner recommended the suspension of both attorneys for six months for their offensive and derogatory remarks towards the judge. The IBP Board adopted the recommendation but reduced the suspension to three months. Velasco-Jacoba sought reconsideration, citing the pending Certiorari case before the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the present complaint should be considered sub judice due to the pending petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether or not the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Lacurom for being premature should also lead to the dismissal of this complaint.

  3. Whether or not Velasco-Jacoba is liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for signing the motion in violation of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

  4. Whether or not Jacoba is liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for authoring the motion.

  5. Whether the language used by Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba in his motion was respectful and dignified.

  6. Whether the timing of the filing of two administrative cases against Judge Lacurom by Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba was intended as leverage.

  7. Whether Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba conducted themselves with the required courtesy and candor as members of the bar and officers of the court.

RULING:

  1. The present complaint should not be considered sub judice because the issue of respondents' liability under the Code of Professional Responsibility is different from the petition for certiorari. The outcome of this case does not affect the resolution of the petition.

  2. The dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Lacurom does not automatically lead to the dismissal of this complaint. The administrative remedies are not alternative or cumulative to judicial review and can only be pursued once there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous.

  3. Velasco-Jacoba is liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for signing the motion in violation of Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Her signature certifies that she had read the motion, believed it to be meritorious, and not for the purpose of delaying the case. By violating the rule, she subjected herself to disciplinary action.

  4. Jacoba is also liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for authoring the motion. His implication of authorship in his Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition, as well as Velasco-Jacoba's immediate and spontaneous reaction to the events, make her account more plausible. The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, can be waived and in this case, Jacoba's implied admission of authorship waives the privilege.

  5. Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba is suspended from the practice of law for two years effective upon finality of the Decision. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba is suspended from the practice of law for two months effective upon finality of the Decision. The respondents are sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Administrative remedies are not alternative or cumulative to judicial review. They can only be pursued once there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous.

  • The signature of counsel on a pleading constitutes a certification that they have read it, believe it to be meritorious, and not for the purpose of delay. Violating this rule can subject counsel to disciplinary action.

  • The marital privilege rule can be waived by the failure to object or by conduct implying consent.

  • Lawyers have the right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels.

  • Lawyers should use dignified and respectful language, befitting the dignity of the legal profession, even when their language may be forceful and emphatic.

  • Lawyers are enjoined to pursue their client's cause through fair and honest means and must not present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage.

  • The timing of filing administrative cases against a judge may raise suspicions of intended leverage.

  • Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with courtesy and candor as members of the bar and officers of the court.