SABERON vs.

LARONG

Facts : Jose C. Saberon charged Atty. Fernando T. Larong before the Office of the Bar Confidant of
grave misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
Saberon filed in the BSP a petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and Alfredo Tan
Bonpin for cancellation of the bank's registration and franchise. The petition arose from the bank's
and/or Bonpin's refusal to return various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan
obtained by Saberon’s wife, despite alleged full payment of the loan and interests.
Larong, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an answer with
affirmative defenses to the petition in which he stated that the petition was another in the series
of blackmail suits filed by Saberon.
The Investigation Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that
Larong be found guilty of gross misconduct. The IBP Board of Governors, in a resolution, however
disagreed with the recommendation and dismissed the case.

Issue/s:
1. WHETHER Larong is guilty of gross misconduct
2. WHETHER the matters stated in the answer Larong filed before the BSP were privileged
3. WHETHER the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution is illegal and void ab initio
4. WHETHER Larong should be disbarred

Held/Ratio:
1. NO. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
The adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong
language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
Members of the Bar should abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of
the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyer's language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
2. NO. Lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the
furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench
beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment.
True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have
consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may
be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.
Granting that the proceedings before the BSP partake of the nature of judicial proceedings,
the ascription of 'blackmail' in the answer and rejoinder filed by Larong is not legitimately
related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry before the BSP.

3. YES. There was no compliance with the procedural requirement that the IBP Board of
Governors' decision shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts or law on which
the same is based. Thus Section 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. - (a) Every case heard by an
investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such
review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on
which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from
the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report.

4. NO. Disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the most severe forms of disciplinary
action, which should be imposed with great caution. They should be meted out only for duly
proven serious administrative charges.
Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language, such transgression is not of a
grievous character as to merit respondent's disbarment.