Barandon V Ferrer

Atty Bonifacio T. Barandon VS Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr.
FACTS
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking
the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary
action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for offenses such as filing a motion to
dismiss which contained abusive and improper language, fabricated charges, hurling grave
threats towards Atty. Barandon,
Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for examination,
Atty. Barandon filed charges of libel and grave threats against him. These charges
came about because Atty. Ferrers clients filed a case for falsification of public
document against Atty. Barandon. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the
threatening remarks against Atty. Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in session. It
was improbable that the court did not take steps to stop, admonish, or cite Atty.
Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.
Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that Atty. Ferrer
was drunk on December 19, 2000 and that he degraded the law profession. The
latter had received various citations that speak well of his character. The cases of
libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against Atty. Ferrer were still
pending. Their mere filing did not make the latter guilty of the charges. Atty.
Barandon was forum shopping when he filed this disbarment case since it referred to
the same libel and grave threats subject of the criminal cases.
Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for disbarment. He alleged that on
December 29, 2000 at about 1:30 p.m., while Atty. Ferrer was on board his sons taxi,
it figured in a collision with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles

passengers.[3] But neither Atty. Ferrer nor any of his co-passengers helped the
victims and, during the police investigation, he denied knowing the taxi driver and
blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness
from reporting the accident to the authorities.
The IBP found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrers violation of Canons 8.01
and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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; and
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.
SC RULING
The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to disagree with
the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating
Commissioner. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct

themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed
to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had
indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a
proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The
Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite
the adversarial nature of our legal system.
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several
disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly
before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to show convincing evidence
denying the said charge against him.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated
to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and
misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before
the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn
to uphold. Consequently, the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is
deemed just and proper.

Barandon V Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barandon V Ferrer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barandon V Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty Bonifacio T. Barandon VS Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr.

threats towards Atty. Barandon,

Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for examination,

Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.

Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for disbarment. He alleged that on

it figured in a collision with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles

from reporting the accident to the authorities.

and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct

You might also like