View full case

ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE v. ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN

FACTS:

Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Rizal P. Balbin for alleged unprofessional conduct. Complainant was the plaintiff's counsel in a case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and secured a favorable judgment for his client. However, respondent, as counsel for the defendant, started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and threatening complainant into withdrawing the case. Respondent made various telephone calls, sent text messages and emails to complainant and even to his friends and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and criminal suits against him. Furthermore, respondent threatened to publicize the suits to tarnish complainant's reputation. Despite multiple notices, respondent failed to file his comment, resulting in fines and orders for his arrest. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent administratively liable and recommended his suspension for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation. The issue is whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for his alleged unprofessional conduct.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent should be administratively sanctioned for his alleged unprofessional conduct. The Court finds respondent administratively liable for gross violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's crude and underhanded tactics directed at the opposing litigant's counsel, the complainant, through various modes of harassment and intimidation constitute a gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law, and this recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Unprofessional conduct by a lawyer, such as harassment and intimidation of opposing counsel, constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The failure of the lawyer to cow the opposing counsel into submission does not mitigate the lawyer's liability and reveals the lawyer's moral character.