View full case

PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG

FACTS:

The case involves a letter-complaint filed by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal against Atty. Walter T. Young, who allegedly threatened her with an administrative and criminal complaint for "knowingly rendering an unjust judgment." The complaint arises from the implementation of a writ of possession/writ of demolition in a pending expropriation case. The writ of possession was issued in 2006 by the previous judge, and in 2011, Judge Macapagal granted a motion for demolition. Atty. Young sent a letter to Judge Macapagal, admonishing her against implementing the writ of possession and mentioning his involvement in another case related to land grab. Atty. Young argued that his letter aimed to prevent the eviction of informal settlers who were not parties to the case and to safeguard their due process rights. Additionally, Atty. Young pointed out alleged irregularities in the court processes.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Young's act of writing a letter to Judge Macapagal constitutes misconduct.

  2. Whether Atty. Young's letter contains menacing language that imputes ill and corrupt motive to a member of the judiciary.

  3. Whether or not Atty. Young's act of sending a letter to Judge Macapagal constitutes a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether or not the penalty of reprimand is appropriate in this case.

RULING:

  1. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors ruled that Atty. Young committed a disrespectful and uncalled for act against the judiciary. They recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Board found Atty. Young guilty of violating Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for his menacing language that imputes ill and corrupt motive to Judge Macapagal.

  2. Yes, Atty. Young's act of sending a letter to Judge Macapagal violates Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court finds his act highly improper and threatening. The language used in the letter demonstrates that Atty. Young did indeed threaten to file administrative and criminal complaints against Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was implemented. This violates the duty of lawyers to observe respect and courtesy towards the Courts and judicial officers.

  3. Yes, the penalty of reprimand is appropriate in this case. Although Atty. Young violated Canon 11, the Court considers several mitigating circumstances such as his acknowledgment of his offense, his age, and his lack of previous infractions. Given these factors, the Court deems it appropriate to lower the penalty to a reprimand.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are duty-bound to serve their clients with diligence and zeal. (Canon 18 and 19)

  • Writing a personal letter to a judge regarding a case pending before him or her is not one of the remedies available to a lawyer.

  • Lawyers have the right to criticize, in properly respectful terms, the acts of courts and judges. However, such criticisms should not go beyond the bounds of decency and propriety. (Pantanosas, Jr. v. Pamatong)

  • Lawyers have a duty to observe respect and courtesy towards the Courts and judicial officers. They are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. (Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility)