BY THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN A VIDEO published on Aug. 21, 2021 in the YouTube channel entitled, “Bitag Official,” Mr. Ben Tulfo castigated a member of the bar for his alleged failure to mediate between his client and the adverse party and for filing instead criminal cases for grave threats in court, without going through a preliminary investigation.
Pursuant to its power under Section 5, Paragraph 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court has promulgated the rules concerning, among others, “pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts”. Every Filipino lawyer has spent at least four years in the study of our laws and rules of procedure, ensuring they are adept in their application in the pursuit of their client’s legal remedies, as evident from their success in hurdling the bar examinations. Thus, all lawyers, both seasoned or newly admitted to the practice of law, are capable and equally deserving of the respect that is due to officers of the court and persons in authority.
The “members of the bar play an important and indispensable role in the administration of justice and in the maintenance of the rule of law in our democratic society.” Sadly, the legal profession is currently besieged, not only by guns for hire, but just as perilously, by people who, without the requisite study and training, irresponsibly arrogate upon themselves the interpretation of laws and application of rules, in a manner that misleads and miseducates the public, and consequently, erodes its trust on lawyers and judges.
While indeed, it is a lawyer’s duty to the society to “encourage his clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement,” a lawyer likewise has a duty “to represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.” At this point in time, it is premature to pass judgement upon Atty. Bermejo’s conduct on account of the fact that no disciplinary proceedings against him have been conducted. The determination of whether an attorney violated the canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility and merits disciplinary action is itself subject to rules of procedure. Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides for the proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys, as explained by the Supreme Court:
x x x. The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or interference, but also to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; it is also to deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereto without authority. We have ruled that malicious and unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints against lawyers in newspapers by editors and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature publication constitutes a contempt of court, punishable by either a fine or imprisonment or both at the discretion of the Court. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
In the subject video, Mr. Tulfo repeatedly discredited the concerned member of the bar for being a relatively new lawyer; exposed him to contempt by inviting his viewers to submit the lawyer’s photograph to their program; forced him to apologize and, publicly humiliated him by challenging him to a live interview where he sought to expose the lawyer’s alleged shortcomings.
Mr. Tulfo’s harsh and demeaning words were unnecessary to his declared purpose of informing and educating the public and renders a disservice to the interest of maintaining the public’s faith in our judicial system in which lawyers play an important and indispensable role.
Thus, we caution the public against resorting to channels that assume to secure speedy justice at the expense of fundamental rights to privacy and due process. Grievances against lawyers and judges should be brought through the proper procedure and venues, as should all disputes incapable of amicable settlement. In this regard, former IBP National President Domigo Egon Q. Cayosa sent a message that he was quoted out of context based on hypothetical facts. Also, he was not even informed that the consultation was recorded or to be aired in public.
As we do, the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines commit to continue working towards prompt and fair administration of justice. In this wise, the IBP, as an institution, will not allow itself or any of its members or the judiciary to be insulted, demeaned, humiliated or used by any media personality or any person, individual or entity for that matter./PN
