Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    BELO-HENARES v. GUEVARRA (2016)

    Uploaded by

    JD DX
    This case involves a lawyer, Respondent Roberto Guevarra, who was accused of posting insulting and vulgar comments about Complainant Dr. Maria Victoria Belo-Henares on Facebook in 2009. Complainant alleged these posts were designed to inspire public hatred against her and close her clinics. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using inappropriate and obscene language in his posts that undermined Complainant's reputation. As a lawyer, Respondent was bound to observe proper decorum at all times and behave respectfully as an officer of the court.

    Copyright:

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

    BELO-HENARES v. GUEVARRA (2016)

    Uploaded by

    JD DX
    2K views1 page
    This case involves a lawyer, Respondent Roberto Guevarra, who was accused of posting insulting and vulgar comments about Complainant Dr. Maria Victoria Belo-Henares on Facebook in 2009. Complainant alleged these posts were designed to inspire public hatred against her and close her clinics. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using inappropriate and obscene language in his posts that undermined Complainant's reputation. As a lawyer, Respondent was bound to observe proper decorum at all times and behave respectfully as an officer of the court.

    Original Title

    BELO-HENARES v. GUEVARRA(2016).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a lawyer, Respondent Roberto Guevarra, who was accused of posting insulting and vulgar comments about Complainant Dr. Maria Victoria Belo-Henares on Facebook in 2009. Complainant alleged these posts were designed to inspire public hatred against her and close her clinics. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using inappropriate and obscene language in his posts that undermined Complainant's reputation. As a lawyer, Respondent was bound to observe proper decorum at all times and behave respectfully as an officer of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    BELO-HENARES v. GUEVARRA (2016)

    Uploaded by

    JD DX
    This case involves a lawyer, Respondent Roberto Guevarra, who was accused of posting insulting and vulgar comments about Complainant Dr. Maria Victoria Belo-Henares on Facebook in 2009. Complainant alleged these posts were designed to inspire public hatred against her and close her clinics. The Supreme Court ruled Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using inappropriate and obscene language in his posts that undermined Complainant's reputation. As a lawyer, Respondent was bound to observe proper decorum at all times and behave respectfully as an officer of the court.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No.

    11394 December 01, 2016


    MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES v. ATTY. ROBERTO C. GUEVARRA

    PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

    FACTS:
    Respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio, who filed criminal cases
    against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks purportedly
    causing infection and making her ill in 2009.

    In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally
    abusing complainant.

    Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire
    public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort
    the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009,
    complainant lodged this complaint for disbarment against respondent.

    ISSUE: WON respondent should be administratively liable

    HELD: YES.

    In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of
    publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook
    posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
    Professional Responsibility:

    Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
    practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
    manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

    Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
    abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

    Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
    objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
    present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
    proceeding.

    By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent
    disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in
    his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an
    officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and
    rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an
    aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.

    You might also like