View full case

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA

FACTS:

Ferdinand A. Cruz filed an administrative complaint against attorney Stanley Cabrera, accusing him of misconduct. Cruz, a law student, had filed multiple actions against his neighbors and appeared as his own counsel. During a hearing before Judge Caridad Cuerdo, Cabrera, representing Cruz's neighbors, questioned Cruz's status as a lawyer. Cruz clarified that he was not a lawyer, and Cabrera responded angrily, saying, "Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna!" Cruz alleged that Cabrera's actions were meant to malign and discredit him and sought appropriate penalties. Cabrera argued that the complaint against him was a scheme to dissuade him from representing the Mina family, against whom Cruz had filed cases. Cabrera claimed he informed the court that Cruz was not a lawyer because Cruz's appearance in a barong tagalog had misled the presiding judge. Cabrera referred to a previous Supreme Court decision stating that statements made during judicial proceedings are privileged. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended a three-month suspension for Cabrera for violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It was noted that Cabrera's argument of privileged communication was not relevant to the case being tried. Cabrera did not dispute that his remarks led to criminal cases against him for oral defamation and unjust vexation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent lawyer's statements and behavior during the court hearing constituted misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether the respondent's statements made during the court hearing are considered privileged communication.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court finds that the respondent lawyer's statements and behavior during the court hearing constituted misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent's imputations of the complainant's misrepresentation as a lawyer were made with malice to discredit the complainant and were intended to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases the respondent was handling. The respondent's use of abusive, offensive, and improper language in open court is a clear violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The appropriate penalty or sanction for the respondent's administrative violations should be imposed.

  2. The Supreme Court holds that the respondent's statements made during the court hearing are not considered privileged communication. The respondent's statements were not relevant to the issue of the case under trial and were intended to malign and discredit the complainant. Therefore, the respondent cannot invoke the privilege of absolute immunity for statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are expected to uphold ethical standards in their dealings with society, including proper behavior and language during court proceedings.

  • Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are not absolutely privileged if they are not relevant to the issue of the case and are intended to malign or discredit a party.

  • Abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language used by a lawyer in professional dealings is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.