A.C. No. 13358 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770] - VIVIAN A. RUBIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court has reminded members of the Bar that while their language may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be dignified, respectful, and befitting of the legal profession. [74] The use of intemperate and unkind ascription is not acceptable in the judicial forum. [75] Specifically with respect to the courts, lawyers must abide by the following: CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. x x x x Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Rule 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. Here, respondent did not refute or defend the questionable language that he used in his pleadings. [76] As such, the Court concurs with the IBP that respondent indeed violated the CPR when he made intemperate statements in the pleadings that he filed before the lower courts. In particular, these are: A. 2015 Manifestation 2.1.b. - 2 Why, in the first place, did he waste precious judicial time, as well as the time of those who were parties to this charade of a hearing, when he could have dismissed the case outright because the Information was "defective"? 2.1.c. In so rendering a decision of acquittal, the presiding judge, in effect, gave premium to non-performance and to lies, in fact a case of the truth of the prosecution versus the lies of the accused, and the Holy Scriptures tell me that all lies originate from the "father" thereof, Satan the Devil. (The Gospel according to St. John, Chap. 8, verse 44.) 2.1.d. Some justice indeed in which the court, which is supposed to be an instrument of justice based on truth, through the presiding judge, actually became, wittingly or unwittingly, the instrument of falsehood and injustice and thus, verily, not of the True God, Almighty God, but of His archenemy, the Devil! x x x x 2.2. The pronouncement in the decision, for instance, that "not a scintilla of evidence was presented by the prosecution showing that the refusal or neglect by the accused to construct the subject canal was for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another" IS VERY DEFINITELY A BIG LIE! x x x x x x x 3.1.1. - b. There being no attestation and/or authentication x x x, despite the timely objection thereto, IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE IGNORANCE OF PROCEDURE! 3.1.2. It is doubly subscribing to a lie and sheer negligence and laziness, bordering on outright incompetence, to believe that the prosecution "failed to dispute the accuracy" of Exhibit "2" in the light of my Reply Affidavit which the decision itself admitted x x x. x x x x 3.1.2. - c. Candor compels