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