A.C. No. 5329 - HEINZ R. HECK, COMPLAINANT, VS. CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that Respondents prayer to dismiss the case for lack of merit be DENIED and that he be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED with stern warning that a similar act in the future will be dealt with more seriously. [15] Ruling of the Court Like the OBC, we consider that the evidence adduced by the complainant insufficient to warrant the disbarment of the respondent. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction against a misbehaving member of the Integrated Bar. As such, the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution only for the most imperative reasons and in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. [16] However, unlike the OBC, we do not find any justification to sanction the respondent. A lawyer like the respondent is not to be sanctioned for every perceived misconduct or wrong actuation. He is still to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing until the proof arrayed against him establishes otherwise. It is the burden of the complainant to properly show that the assailed conduct or actuation constituted a breach of the norms of professional conduct and legal ethics. Otherwise, the lawyer merits exoneration. To begin with, the holding of the meeting between Atty. Babarin, Hecks counsel, and Atty. Adaza in the respondents office was not suspicious or irregular, contrary to the insinuation of Heck. We are not unmindful of the practice of some legal practitioners to arrange to meet with their opposing counsels and their clients in the premises of the offices of the public prosecutors or in the courthouses primarily because such premises are either a convenient or a neutral ground for both sides. Accordingly, holding the meeting between Heck and his adversary, with their respective counsels, in the respondents office did not by itself indicate any illegal or corrupt activity. We also note that the respondent was not present in the meeting. Secondly, we cannot sanction the respondent for having angrily reacted to Hecks unexpected tirade in his presence. The respondent was not then reacting to an attack on his person, but to Hecks disrespectful remark against Philippine authorities in general. Any self-respecting government official like the respondent should feel justly affronted by any expression or show of disrespect in his presence, including harsh words like those uttered by Heck. Whether or not Heck was justified in making the utterance is of no relevance to us. Lawyers may be expected to maintain their composure and decorum at all times, but they are still human, and their emotions are like those of other normal people placed in unexpected situations that can crack their veneer of self-control. That is how we now view the actuation of the respondent in reacting to Hecks utterance. The Court will not permit the respondents good record to be tarnished by his having promptly reacted to