4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly practice of law for one (1) month. Atty. Misa sought for reconsideration,[13] whereby the IBP Board of Governors resolved[14] to reduce the penalty back to reprimand as recommended by Commissioner Mamon. Issue Did Atty. Misa violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by his use of derogatory and defamatory language against Roselyn in his counter-affidavit? Ruling After careful review of the records, the Court concurs with the findings of Commissioner Mamon that the language contained in Atty. Misa's counter-affidavit, making reference to the personal behavior and circumstances of Roselyn run afoul to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Gimeno v. Zaide,[15] it was held that the prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a lawyer's professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other person, is based on the following canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: 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. (Emphases supplied) It must be noted that Roselyn was not even a party to the subject criminal case under investigation by Asst. Prosecutor Melanio E. Cordillo, Jr. The statements made in the counter-affidavit that Roselyn was a known drug addict, a fraud, and making insinuation that her marriage was a "fixed marriage" were pointless and uncalled for, and thus only show that the clear intention of Atty. Misa was to humiliate or insult Roselyn. All the foregoing leads the Court to conclude that Atty. Misa violated the canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his use of derogatory and defamatory language in his affidavit. After all, "[t]hough a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum."[16] WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. JOAQUIN L. MISA, JR. (Atty. Misa) is found GUILTY of violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65957 3/5