FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Foodsphere, Inc. against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr. The complainant, a meat processing corporation, alleges that the respondent, a prominent tabloid writer and TV/radio host, engaged in grossly immoral conduct, violated the lawyer's oath, and disrespected the courts and investigating prosecutors. The complaint arose from an incident wherein a customer found worms inside a can of CDO Liver spread purchased from a grocery store. The customer filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD), and the complainant was required to file its answer. During this process, the respondent threatened to publish articles maligning the complainant and its products unless they gave in to the customer's demand for damages. The complainant offered to reimburse actual expenses but the offer was turned down. Eventually, the customer withdrew the complaint before the BFAD after reaching an agreement, in which the respondent claims he prepared the document. However, the respondent continued to write articles in different tabloids, putting the complainant in a negative light.

In addition, the complainant filed criminal complaints against the respondent and several others for libel and threatening to publish libel before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. These complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the disbarment complaint. The respondent wrote an article in his column published in Hataw! and repeatedly complained about the complainant in several episodes of his television program. The respondent also filed his Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent violated the Order dated December 10, 2004, which restrained him from further publishing, televising, and/or broadcasting any matter related to the complaint filed against him.

2. Whether the respondent violated Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility by making public statements in the media regarding a pending case.

3. Whether the respondent violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by casting aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and its prosecutors.

4. Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

5. Whether the respondent engaged in deceitful conduct.

6. Whether the respondent violated the status quo order and made public statements in the media regarding a pending case.

7. Whether the respondent used abusive and offensive language in his professional dealings.

8. Whether the respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

9. Whether Atty. Melanio Mauricio violated the lawyer's oath and breached the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

10. Whether a three-year suspension from the practice of law is a sufficient penalty for Atty. Melanio Mauricio's violations.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent violated the Order dated December 10, 2004, which restrained him from further publishing, televising, and/or broadcasting any matter related to the complaint filed against him. Despite receiving the order, the respondent published articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column after the issuance of the order.

2. Yes, the respondent violated Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility by making public statements in the media regarding a pending case. Rule 13.03 prohibits lawyers from making public statements in the media that tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party in a pending case.

3. Yes, the respondent violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by casting aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and its prosecutors. The respondent assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office without submitting any evidence to substantiate his allegations, thereby violating Canon 11, which requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers.

4. The respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful conduct, making public statements in the media regarding a pending case, using abusive and offensive language in his professional dealings, and failing to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

5. Yes, Atty. Melanio Mauricio violated the lawyer's oath and breached the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

6. A three-year suspension from the practice of law is deemed sufficient as a penalty for Atty. Melanio Mauricio's violations.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of court orders can result in disciplinary action against lawyers.

• Lawyers should refrain from making public statements in the media that could influence public opinion regarding a pending case.

• Lawyers are required to maintain respect towards the courts and judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct from others.

• Lawyers are required to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

• Lawyers should not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case, as it can arouse public opinion for or against a party.

• Lawyers are obligated to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

• Lawyers should conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their professional colleagues and should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

• Lawyers should not use abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in their professional dealings.

• Lawyers are expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

• The power of the media to form or influence public opinion should not be underestimated.

• Violation of the lawyer's oath and breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility can warrant disciplinary actions against lawyers.

• Vindictiveness as a motivation for filing charges may be taken into account as an aggravating factor in determining the penalty for a lawyer's misconduct.