Bolivar v. Loyola

 

Bolivar v. Loyola

A.C. No. 10826

April 12, 2023

FACTS:

                In Atty. Loyola's Answer, he allegedly used disrespectful, offensive, intemperate, or highly derogatory language. Bolivar thus filed a "Motion to Impose on Defendant Atty. Nelson Loyola Appropriate Disciplinary Sanctions as Maybe Warranted under [Sec.] 3, Rule 7 in Relation to [Sec.] 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court." The court found Atty. Loyola guilty of Direct Contempt and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of seven days and pay a fine of PHP2,000.00. Atty. Loyola resorted to filing motions for reconsiderations and appeals until it reached this Court, but to no avail. The Decision became final and executory on August 22, 2014. To this day, Atty. Loyola has not yet served his sentence. Hence, Bolivar filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Loyola. Bolivar alleged that as a responsible officer of the court, Atty. Loyola should turn himself in and serve his sentence. Citing Siy v. National Labor Relations Commission,  Bolivar asserted that the grounds for holding a lawyer in contempt and for holding him administratively liable are separate and distinct from each other. Hence, despite the finality of the contempt proceedings against Atty. Loyola, he can still be administratively charged. Bolivar advanced that Atty. Loyola's use of disrespectful, offensive, intemperate, or highly derogatory language violated multiple canons and rules of the CPR. In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Loyola claimed that he meant no malice in his actions. He was merely doing his job of exposing wrongful practices in the judiciary. Further, Bolivar did not have personal knowledge of the facts stated in his Complaint-Affidavit, and his assertions are mere hearsay.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Atty. Loyola should be sanctioned for his failure to serve his sentence of 7 days of imprisonment for his conviction of Direct Contempt.

HELD:

                No. At the time the complaint was filed, there is no evidence on record that a warrant of arrest has been issued. He cannot be said to be evading his arrest, or violating any order. However, he violated Canon 11 of the CPR for using malicious language when he wrote in his pleadings that “Judge Roberto S. Chiongson acted with partiality x x x,” “Judge Chiongson, practically lawyered for WNC when he implanted evidence x x x” and “[Judge Chiongson] acted wrongly in suppressing the evidences x x x.” He should have resorted to proper legal forum and chosen the appropriate remedy.

                It is settled that a lawyer who uses abusive or abrasive language shows disrespect to the court and disgraces the Bar. He then invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power as respect for the judicial office should always be observed and enforced. The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.” Disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the most severe forms of disciplinary action; thus, they should be imposed with great caution. Thus, for violating Canon 11 of the CPR, We impose the penalty of reprimand with stern warning on Atty. Loyola.