Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 134 views

    Johnny NG, Complainant, vs. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Gonzales
    Atty. Benjamin Alar represented complainants in a labor case that was dismissed. On appeal, the dismissal was upheld. In his motion for reconsideration, Alar used improper and abusive language against the Labor Arbiter and NLRC judges. Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment case against Alar with the IBP Commission. Alar argued the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to the NLRC as it is not a court. However, the Court held that as a lawyer, Alar's conduct must still observe law and ethics even when practicing before the NLRC. Alar was found to have violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code by using insulting language, eroding trust in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Johnny NG, Complainant, vs. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Gonzales
    134 views2 pages
    Atty. Benjamin Alar represented complainants in a labor case that was dismissed. On appeal, the dismissal was upheld. In his motion for reconsideration, Alar used improper and abusive language against the Labor Arbiter and NLRC judges. Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment case against Alar with the IBP Commission. Alar argued the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to the NLRC as it is not a court. However, the Court held that as a lawyer, Alar's conduct must still observe law and ethics even when practicing before the NLRC. Alar was found to have violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code by using insulting language, eroding trust in

    Original Title

    Legal Profession

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Benjamin Alar represented complainants in a labor case that was dismissed. On appeal, the dismissal was upheld. In his motion for reconsideration, Alar used improper and abusive language against the Labor Arbiter and NLRC judges. Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment case against Alar with the IBP Commission. Alar argued the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to the NLRC as it is not a court. However, the Court held that as a lawyer, Alar's conduct must still observe law and ethics even when practicing before the NLRC. Alar was found to have violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code by using insulting language, eroding trust in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    134 views2 pages

    Johnny NG, Complainant, vs. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Glenn Gonzales
    Atty. Benjamin Alar represented complainants in a labor case that was dismissed. On appeal, the dismissal was upheld. In his motion for reconsideration, Alar used improper and abusive language against the Labor Arbiter and NLRC judges. Complainant Johnny Ng filed a disbarment case against Alar with the IBP Commission. Alar argued the Code of Professional Responsibility did not apply to the NLRC as it is not a court. However, the Court held that as a lawyer, Alar's conduct must still observe law and ethics even when practicing before the NLRC. Alar was found to have violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code by using insulting language, eroding trust in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    JOHNNY NG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR, RESPONDENT.

    FACTS 

    Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor case filed with the Labor Arbiter which
    dismissed the complaint. On appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the dismissal. In his Motion for
    Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used improper and abusive language full of
    diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and the ponente of the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng, one of the
    respondents, filed a disbarment case against Alar before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for such
    misbehavior. 

    Alar contended, inter alia, that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility applies only
    suppletorily at the NLRC when the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary matters for
    litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule X of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides for
    adequate sanctions against misbehaving lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before it. Finally he
    asserted that the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to lawyers practicing
    at the NLRC, the latter not being a court and that LAs and NLRC Commissioners are not judges nor
    justices and the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly do not apply to them, not being part of the judiciary. 

    ISSUE 

    Is a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC susceptible of the provisions of the Code of Professional
    Conduct? 

    HELD 

    The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both its moral and intellectual
    integrity, replete with implied accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence. Respondent used
    improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit any justification. 

    The assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, not being judges or justices and
    therefore not part of the judiciary and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to
    them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that respondent became unmindful of the fact
    that in addressing the NLRC, he nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of
    the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to
    be and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. 

    Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His actions
    erode the public’s perception of the legal profession.

    CANON 10: A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

    RULES:

     10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall be
    misled, or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice.
     10.92 – A lawyer should not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
    language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of decision or authority, or knowingly
    cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as fact
    that which has not been proved.
     10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
    ends of justice.

    CANON 11: A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT AND DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO
    JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD NOT INSISTS ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS:

    RULES:

     11.01 – A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.


     11.02 – A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings
     11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menancing language or
    behavior before the courts
     11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or
    have no materiality to the case
     11.05 – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to he proper authorities only

    You might also like