Disqualification by reason of privileged communication- Lawyer- client of the presence of malice — if the same are relevant, pertinent, or

62449- People vs Sesbreno material to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. A pleading
Gutierrez Jr must meet the test of relevancy to avoid being considered
libelous
Accused is charged with libel for filing a reply in a civil case wherein he was the plaintiff’s 1. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to
counsel. He contends privileged communication to avoid criminal libel liability. SC agrees make alleged defamatory matters privileged, the courts
but reprimands him as a member of the bar. are inclined to be liberal. The matter to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in
relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no
DOCTRINE reasonable man can doubt its irrelevance and
The doctrine of privileged communication, is explicitly provided for in the Revised impropriety. In order that a matter alleged in a pleading
Penal Code, as an exception to the general principle that every defamatory may be privileged, it need not be in every case material
imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, in the absence of "good to the issues presented by the pleadings, It must,
intention" and "justifiable motive" however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent
a. However, this doctrine is not without qualification. Statements made in the to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged — that is, privileged subject of the inquiry in the course of the trial
regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice — if the same ii. In this case, it appears that in connection with the initial formal
are relevant, pertinent, or material to the cause in hand or subject of hearing of the Civil case appellant Atty. Ceniza as counsel for the
inquiry. defendant, filed an Urgent Motion to Transfer Hearing,
b. 1. Atty. Sesbreno, counsel for the plaintiff, did not receive
notice of said motion
FACTS a. Upon the Atty’s Sesbreno’s representation, the
2. Information filed on March 4, 1981, the City Fiscal's Office of Cebu City: court a quo granted the motion for
a. accused Atty. Raul H. Sesbreno of the crime of libel postponement, ordering Atty. Ceniza, however,
b. based on alleged defamatory statements found in a pleading entitled to reimburse Atty. Sesbreno's clients for
"PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION DATED MARCH expenses incurred in attending the supposed
9TH" filed in Civil Case No. R-18181 entitled Heirs of Ceniza et al vs Urot hearing slated that day
pending litigation before CFI Cebu b. MR was filed by Atty. Ceniza showing evidence
3. Accused filed a MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION on the ground: of receipt of notice of hearing by Atty.
a. on the face itself of the information, it is obvious that the allegedly libelous Sesbreno's office.
statements imputing that Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza is an irresponsible person, i. MR was granted. The court ordered
cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible childish prankster are Atty. Sesbreno to show cause why he
contained in a pleading filed in court and, therefore, covered by the should not be declared in contempt
DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS; hence, for misrepresentation.
no civil or criminal liability can arise therefrom. ii. Against said order, Atty. Sesbreno
4. RTC issued an order quashing the information and dismissing the case for lack of filed a MR with a counter-motion for
cause of action. contempt against the Atty. Ceniza for
5. On appeal, the Court of Appeals certified the same to ths SC reneging on his commitment to
reimburse appellee's clients and for
ISSUE with RULING resorting to dilatory tactics.
1. W/n the doctrine of privileged communication applies- YES iii. To that, Atty. Ceniza, filed his
a. SC: The doctrine means that utterances made in the course of judicial "Opposition to Motion for
proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, belong Reconsideration, Etc." charging
to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged has been Sesbreno with misrepresentation,
expressed in a long line of cases. prevarication, and "telling a barefaced
b. The doctrine of privileged communication, moreover, is explicitly and documented lie."
provided for in the Revised Penal Code, as an exception to tile general iv. Replying to these remarks,
principle that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be Sesbreno then filed his "REPLY"
malicious, even if it is true, in the absence of "good intention" and subject matter of Ceniza's libel
"justifiable motive" suit.
i. However, this doctrine is not without qualification. Statements b. SC: Applying the liberal rule to the case at bar and considering the
made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely incidents which preceded it, we find Atty’s Sesbreno’s alleged
privileged — that is, privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and
1
 slanderous statements pertinent to the motion to cite appellant Ceniza
in contempt.
i. Although the language used by accused in the pleading in
question was undoubtedly strong, since it was made in legitimate
defense of his own and of his client's interest, such remarks must
be deemed absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis of an
action for libel
ii. However, although it is understandable, if not justifiable, that, at
times zeal in the defense of one's client may be carried to the point
of undue skepticism and doubts as to the motives of opposing
counsel, the spectacle presented by two members of the bar
engaged in bickering and recrimination is far from modifying.
c. Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants. Whatever may be the ill-feeling
existing between clients, it should not be allowed to influence counsel in
their conduct and demeanor toward each other or toward suitors in the case.
All personalities between counsel should be scrupulously avoided. In the
trial of a case it is indecent to allude to the personal history or the personal
peculiarities and Idiosyncracies of counsel on the other side. Personal
colloquies between counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly
wrangling should also be carefully avoided.
d. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language
should likewise be dignified. Choice of language is a very important
requirement in the preparation of pleadings.
e. Time and again we have rebuked and punished lawyers for conduct
showing them unfit to practice law. The Supreme Court as guardian of the
legal profession has ultimate powers over attorneys, under the constitution.
i. the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over attorneys is an
inherent power incidental to its proper administration of justice and
essential to an orderly discharge of its judicial functions
ii. Furthermore, attorneys are the court's constituency to aid in the
administration of justice A lawyer occupies what may be termed a
quasi-judicial office since he is in fact an officer of the court, and
like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends
of justice. Thus, only those complying with the strict standards of
legal practice are maintained in the roll of attorneys and those
falling short thereof may be disbarred.
f. Thus, both attorneys are advised accordingly.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
order appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
Atty. Raul Sesbreno is reprimanded and admonished to refrain from employing language
unbecoming of a member of the Bar and to extend courtesy and respect to his brothers in
the profession with a warning that any future infraction of a nature similar to that found in
this case shall be dealt with more severely.

DIGESTER: Nikki M.