FOODSPHERE, INC. vs.

MAURICIO, JR

FACTS:

Foodsphere Inc (complainant) is a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing and
manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under the brand name “CDO”. On
the other hand, Atty. Melanio Mauricio Jr (respondent) is a writer/columnist of tabloids, he also host
television program and radio programs, and is popularly known as “BATAS MAURICIO”. Foodsphere filed
a complaint for disbarment against Mauricio for (1) grossly immoral conduct, (2) violation of lawyer’s
oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.

A certain Cordero bought a canned goods including a can of CDO liver spread. While Cordero and
his relative was eating with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered
a colony of worms inside a can. Thus, they filed a complaint with the BFAD, and the latter confirmed that
presence of parasites in the Liver spread. Sps Cordero demand 150,000 as damages from complainant.
When the latter did not heed, the former threatened them to bring the matter to the attention of the
media. Respondent issued a tabloid which found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing
vices and defects to it and its product. The respondent threatened to publish the articles unless
complainant give P150,000.00. he then proposed to settle the matter for P50,000.00, P15,000 of which
would go to the Carlos and P35,000 to his Batas Foundation.

The IBP recommended that latter be suspended from practice of law.

ISSUES:

WON respondent violated the code of professional responsibility.

HELD:

YES, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, and Rule 8.01 of Canon8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent violated Rule 1.01 because he engaged in deceitful conduct by, taking advantage of
the complaint against CDO to advance his interest – to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek
sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program. Further, respondent
violated Rule 13.02 because despite the pendency of the case, respondent continued with his attacks
against the complainant and its product by further publishing, televising and broadcasting the same.
Lastly, respondent violated Rule 8.01 because he used offensive and abusive language when dealing with
the complainant, thus, prejudicial to the honor and reputation of the complainant.

Hence, the respondent was SUSPENDED from practice of law for 3 years for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.