10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010.*

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., complainant, vs.

ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; The practice of law is a privilege

given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
and morality; 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.—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. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides: Rule 8.01.
—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this
Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon
the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil
Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had
no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty.
Barandon authored the same.
Same; Same; The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.—Though
a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Atty.
Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can
only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and
erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty.
Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his
indignation.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

Same; Same; Due Process; The essence of due process is to be

found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.—Contrary to
Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been
accorded due process. The essence of due process is to be found in
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence

one may have in support of one’s defense. So long as the parties
are given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements
of due process are satisfactorily complied with. Here, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the
opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the
allegations of Atty. Barandon.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment, Suspension from Practice of Law or
Imposition of Appropriate Disciplinary Action.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

ABAD, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is
claimed to have hurled invectives upon another lawyer and
filed a baseless suit against him.

The Facts and the Case

On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T.

Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit1 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 the following offenses:
1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as
plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case 7040, filed a reply
with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained
abusive, offensive,

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-9.

531

VOL. 616, MARCH 26, 2010 531

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

and improper language which insinuated that Atty.

Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against
Atty. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged
falsification of public document when the document
allegedly falsified was a notarized document executed
on February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon
was not yet a lawyer nor was assigned in Camarines
Norte. The latter was not even a signatory to the
document.
3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start of
hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened
Atty. Barandon saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan
kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala
na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte,
ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur,
umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-
rito.”
4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of
falsification of public document without bothering to
check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed to

consider that a notarized document is presumed to be
genuine and authentic until proven otherwise.
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first
disbarment case against repeating his unethical act;
yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual
harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter
in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave
threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. In
October 2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to
falsify the daily time record of his son who worked
with the Commission on Settlement of Land
Problems, Department of Justice. When Atty.
Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed
him with inflammatory language.
532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses in his answer

with motion to dismiss:
1. 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. Ferrer’s clients
filed a case for falsification of public document against
Atty. Barandon.
2. The offended party in the falsification case,
Imelda Palatolon, vouchsafed that her thumbmark in
the waiver document had been falsified.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
In his reply affidavit,2 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 son’s taxi, it figured in a collision with a tricycle,
resulting in serious injuries to the tricycle’s passengers.3
But neither Atty. 

_______________

2 Id., at p. 71.
3 Id., at p. 73.

533
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

VOL. 616, MARCH 26, 2010 533

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

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.4
Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case
against him had already been dismissed. He belittled the
citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly received. On the contrary,
in its Resolution 00-1,5 the IBP-Camarines Norte Chapter
opposed his application to serve as judge of the MTC of
Mercedes, Camarines Sur, on the ground that he did not
have “the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry
and character of a trial judge” and that he was facing a
criminal charge for acts of lasciviousness and a disbarment
case filed by an employee of the same IBP chapter.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this
Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two
years of Atty. Ferrer. 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. He attributed to Atty.
Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of
the plaintiff’s affidavit despite the absence of evidence that
the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty.
Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating
Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the
threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of
other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the
start of hearing.
On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed
Resolution XV-2002-225,6 adopting and approving the
Investigat-

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 74-75.

5 Id., at p. 120.
6 Id., at p. 137.

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

ing Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the

penalty of suspension to only one year.
Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the
Board denied it in its Resolution7 of October 19, 2002 on
the ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the
Supreme Court. On February 5, 2003, however, the Court
referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of Atty.
Ferrer’s motion for reconsideration.8 On May 22, 2008 the
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner
that denied Atty. Ferrer’s motion for reconsideration.10

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on

Board of Governors’ IBP Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-
2008.11 On August 12, 2009 the Court resolved to treat
Atty. Ferrer’s comment as a petition for review under Rule
139 of the Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Barandon filed his
comment,12 reiterating his arguments before the IBP.
Further, he presented certified copies of orders issued by
courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer
against appearing in court drunk.13
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
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.

7 Id., at p. 164.
8 Id., at p. 203.
9 Id., at pp. 585-600.
10 Id., at p. 584.
11 Id., at pp. 601-606.
12 Id., at pp. 728-734.
13 Id., at pp. 740-741.

535

VOL. 616, MARCH 26, 2010 535

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

The Court’s Ruling

We have examined the records of this case and find 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.14
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. Specifically, in
Rule 8.01, the Code provides:

Rule 8.01.—A lawyer shall not, in his professional

dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon.

The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the
falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in
Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice
for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified
and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
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. To quote
portions of what he said in his reply with motion to
dismiss:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

“1. That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable

misrepresentation and “FALSIFICATION” of documents,
committed to mislead this Honorable Court, but with
concomitant grave responsibility of counsel for
Defendants, for

_______________

14 Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 85, 91.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

distortion and  serious misrepresentation to the court, for

presenting a grossly “FALSIFIED” document, in violation
of his oath of office as a government employee and as
member of the Bar, for the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA
PALATOLON, has never executed the “SALAYSAY
AFFIDAVIT”, wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in
view whereof, hereby DENY the same including the
affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the same,
from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all lies and mere
fabrications, sufficient ground for “DISBARMENT” of the
one responsible for said falsification and distortions.”15

The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use

dignified language in their pleadings despite the
adversarial nature of our legal system.16
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. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides:

Rule 7.03.—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that

adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s

drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the
start of a court hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present
convincing evidence to support his denial of this particular
charge. He merely presented a certification from the police
that its blotter for the day did not report the threat he
supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the
police blotter on a subsequent date that recorded his
complaint against Atty. Ferrer.

_______________

15 Rollo, p. 12.
16 Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 359,
368.

537

VOL. 616, MARCH 26, 2010 537

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

Atty. Ferrer said, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung

patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang
magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na
rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa
Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.” Evidently, he uttered
these with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and
discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court
personnel, and litigants waiting for the start of hearing in
court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal
profession. The Court cannot countenance it.
Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place
in the dignity of judicial forum.17 Atty. Ferrer ought to
have realized that this sort of public behavior can only
bring down the legal profession in the public estimation
and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral
righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he
chose to express his indignation.
Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds
that he has been accorded due process. The essence of due
process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of
one’s defense.18 So long as the parties are given the
opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due
process are satisfactorily complied with.19 Here, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the
opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the
allegations of Atty. Barandon.

_______________

17  De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals Justices, 454 Phil. 718, 727; 407
SCRA 213, 220 (2003).
18 Batongbakal v. Zafra, 489 Phil. 367, 378; 448 SCRA 399, 410 (2005).
19 Calma v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 297, 304; 302 SCRA 682, 689
(1999).

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Barandon, Jr. vs. Ferrer, Sr.

    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.20 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.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case 01-
809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer,
Sr. from the practice of law for one year effective upon his
receipt of this Decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Ferrer’s
personal record as an attorney with the Office of the Bar
Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the IBP and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616

to the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to

all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.

Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. suspended from practice of law

for one (1) year.

Note.—A lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as

an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial
processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. (Prieto vs. Corpuz,
510 SCRA 1 [2006])
——o0o—— 

_______________

20 Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99, 104; 405 SCRA 212, 217
(2003).

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175453812d0feaa4e3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8