A.M. No. CA-03-35 (A.M. OCA-IPI No. 02-55-CAJ) - ATTY. ROSALIO DE LA ROSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES JOSE L. SABIO, JR., PERLITA TRIA-TIRONA, OSWALDO AGCAOILI, MARIANO DEL CASTILLO, METC JUDGE EUGENIO MENDINUETO, ATTYS. GILBERT REYES, DEOGRACIAS FELLONE AND ANTONIO HERNANDEZ.D E C I

Ruling

Accordingly, in the judicial forum, their clients were entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and the three respondent lawyers were expected to avail of such remedy or defense. Indeed, complainant failed to show adequate proof that the three respondent lawyers deliberately and knowingly "hatched a scheme and toyed with the law" [21] when they filed the said petition before the Court of Appeals. It bears stressing that it is the duty of a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues. [22] As officers of the court, lawyers are mandated to conduct themselves honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other. Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. Obviously, complainant's use of sarcasm in calling the three respondent lawyers "brilliant lawyers", "legal supermen" and "sages" fell short of this mandate. It served no useful purpose. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions have no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it. [23] WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing, the complaint against all the respondents is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.