View full case

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON v. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER

FACTS:

Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. seeking disciplinary action. Barandon alleged that Ferrer filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss in Civil Case 7040, wherein he used abusive and offensive language insinuating that Barandon presented a falsified document. He also claimed that Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against him for alleged falsification of a public document. Barandon further stated that during a court hearing, Ferrer threatened him while being drunk. Barandon accused Ferrer of making false accusations without verifying the authenticity of a notarized document. Barandon also revealed that Ferrer was facing other charges for sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, libel, and grave threats. Additionally, Barandon alleged that Ferrer was involved in a car accident, where he failed to assist the victims and blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk.

Ferrer, in his defense, argued that libel and grave threat charges were filed against him as a result of the falsification case filed by his clients against Barandon. He claimed that the offended party in the falsification case confirmed that her thumbmark in the document had been falsified. Ferrer also contended that the alleged threatening remarks were made when the court was already in session and that there was no evidence to support the claim that he was drunk. He denied the allegations and argued that Barandon engaged in forum shopping by filing the disbarment case. Ferrer further argued that the criminal charges filed against him were still pending and did not make him automatically guilty. In his reply affidavit, Barandon added another ground for disbarment, accusing Ferrer of not assisting victims in a car accident and obstructing the reporting of the incident to authorities.

The case was initially submitted to the Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD, who recommended the two-year suspension of Ferrer. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but reduced the penalty to one year. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The case was then referred back to the IBP for resolution of Ferrer's motion for reconsideration. The IBP Board of Governors eventually adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation and denied Ferrer's motion. Ferrer filed a Comment, which the Court treated as a petition for review. Barandon submitted his comment and presented certified copies of court orders warning Ferrer against appearing in court drunk.

The issues raised in the case focus on whether the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding Ferrer guilty of the charges and, if so, whether the imposed penalty was justified.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him.

  2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.

RULING:

  1. The IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner did not err in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer's violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation. The Court referred the case back to the IBP for resolution of Atty. Ferrer's motion for reconsideration, and the Board of Governors denied the motion.

  2. The penalty of suspension for one year imposed on Atty. Ferrer is justified considering the gravity of his offenses, such as hurling invectives and threats at another lawyer, filing a baseless suit against him, and engaging in unethical conduct. The penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by Atty. Ferrer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Canon 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements or engaging in dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentative conduct.

  • Canon 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to abstain from all offensive personality and to refrain from any act or omission that may cause injustice to any party or interfere with the administration of justice.

  • The penalty imposed on a lawyer in an administrative case should be commensurate to the gravity of the offense committed.