View full case

MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES

FACTS:

Maximino Noble III filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Orlando O. Ailes before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Maximino alleged that Orlando, a lawyer, filed a complaint for damages against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr. in which Orlando inaccurately stated his IBP O.R. number and MCLE Compliance. Maximino also discovered that Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from retaining his services as counsel through text messages. In defense, Orlando denied the charges and claimed that the offensive language used in his text messages to Marcelo was a "brother-to-brother communication" made in good faith. Orlando was later convicted of the crime of unjust vexation for texting insulting and threatening words to Marcelo to drop his lawyer. The IBP Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case against Orlando, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and dismissed the case, warning Orlando to be more circumspect in his dealings. Maximino filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Aggrieved, Maximino filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the failure to comply with the MCLE requirement is a ground for disbarment.

  2. Whether or not the offensive language used in the text messages constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando. The failure to comply with the MCLE requirement is not a ground for disbarment but may only result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of pleadings from the records.

  2. The IBP found that there was no violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility as the offensive language used in the text messages was sent privately between Orlando and Marcelo and was not directly addressed to Maximino nor intended to be published and known by third persons.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Failure to comply with the MCLE requirement is not a ground for disbarment.

  • Offensive language may only constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility if it is directly addressed to the complainant or intended to be published and known by third persons.