Yared v.

Ilarde
FACTS: Estrella Yared, substituted by Carmen Tiongco because the former is now
dead, and Jose Tiongco were opposing parties to a property in litigation. Carmen
directly filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court because Judge
Ilarde of the RTC ordered the cancellation of annotation of notices of lis pendens.
The Supreme Court noticed and commented that Carmen has failed to comply with
the principle of judicial hierarchy and that she should have filed the petition in the
CA first. However, the Supreme Court also noticed the improper and unethical
language employed by Jose Tiangco, who was also a counsel for the private
respondents, in his pleadings and motions filed both in SC and lower court. He
described the counsel of the petitioner, Atty. Marciana Deguma, a rambunctious
wreastler-type female of 52 who does not wear a dress which is not red, and who
stampedes into the court room like a mad fury and who speaks slang English to
conceal her faulty grammar. Jose Tiongco alleged that Atty. Deguma does that to
please and tenderize and sweeten towards her own self the readily available
Carmelo Tiongco, an unmarried mestizo who lives with Carmen. He further
described Atty. Deguma as an unmarried maiden of certain age and a lovecrazed female Apache who is ready to skin the defendant alive for not being a
bastard and a horned spinster and man-hungry virago and female bull of an
Amazon. He also stated that Atty. Deguma is using PAO as a marriage bureau for
her own benefit.
ISSUE/S: W/N Jose Tiongco, being also one of the counsels of the defendants,
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: Yes. With the language that he employed, he obviously violated Canon 8-A
Rule 8.01 which states that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
languages which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. He also violated Rule
11.03 which says that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or
menacing language before the courts. The SC also cited Romero vs Valle, although
allowed some latitude of remarks or comment in furtherance of the cause he
upholds, his arguments, both written or oral, should be gracious to both court and
opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one
gentleman to another. Jose Tiongco was merely warned. Note: In the first part of
the case, even the title of the case, it was not mentioned whether Jose Tiongco is a
lawyer or not. Then, theres one sentence which addressed him Atty. Jose
Tiongco.