DIGEST No. 1 Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

Resurreccion, Kimberly R.
LCSR Case Digest No. 1
Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

A.C. No. 5179. May 31, 2016
J. Leonen
Facts:
Dionnie Ricafort (complainant) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rene Medina
(respondent) alleging that sometime in October 1999, his tricycle sideswiped respondent's car
along Sarvida Street in Surigao City. Respondent alighted from his car and confronted complainant.
Respondent allegedly snapped at complainant, saying: "Wa ka makaila sa aka?" ("Do you not know
me?") Respondent proceeded to slap complainant, and then left.
Later on, complainant learned, through the traffic aide Manuel Cuizon, that the driver of
the car was Atty. Rene 0. Medina, a provincial board member of Surigao del Norte. According to
complainant, he felt "hurt, embarrassed, and humiliated." Respondent's act showed arrogance
and disrespect for his oath of office as a lawyer. Complainant alleged that this act constituted gross
misconduct. Attached to complainant's letter were his affidavit, Manuel Cuizon's Affidavit, and a
letter signed by Mayor Navarro, League of Mayors President of Surigao del Norte Chapter. In her
letter, Mayor Navarro stated that respondent slapped complainant and caused him great
humiliation. Attached to Mayor Navarro's letter were two (2) pages containing the signatures of
19 Mayors of different municipalities in Surigao Del Norte.
Respondent, in his comment, denied slapping complainant. He alleged that the incident
happened while he was bringing his 10-year-old son to school. He further alleged that
complainant's reckless driving caused complainant's tricycle to bump the fender of respondent's
car. When respondent alighted from his car to check the damage, complainant approached him in
an unfriendly manner, so he pushed him to defend himself.
The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Thereafter, the Commissioner recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for 60 days from notice for misconduct and violation of Canon 7, Rule 7 .03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
Commissioner but modified the penalty and resolved that considering respondent's misconduct
and violation of Canon 7. 03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for behaving in a
scandalous manner, Atty. Rene O. Medina is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for thirty
(30) days.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rene Medina should be held administratively liable.
Ruling:
Yes. It is true that this Court does not tolerate the unceremonious use of disciplinary
proceedings to harass its officers with baseless allegations. This Court will exercise its disciplinary
power against its officers only if allegations of misconduct are established. A lawyer is presumed
to be innocent of the charges against him or her. He or she enjoys the presumption that his or her
acts are consistent with his or her oath. Thus, the burden of proof still rests upon complainant to
prove his or her claim.
Page 1 of 2
Resurreccion, Kimberly R.
LCSR Case Digest No. 1
In administrative cases against lawyers, the required burden of proof is preponderance of

evidence, or evidence that is superior, more convincing, or of "greater weight than the other."
In this case, complainant discharged this burden.
The slapping incident was not only alleged by complainant in detail in his signed and
notarized affidavit; complainant's affidavit was also supported by the signed and notarized
affidavit of a traffic aide present during the incident. It was even the traffic aide who informed
complainant of respondent's plate number.
The purpose of administrative proceedings is to ensure that the public is protected from
lawyers who are no longer fit for the profession. In this instance, this Court will not tolerate the
arrogance of and harassment committed by its officers.
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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.
By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the face hints
of a character that disregards the human dignity of another. Respondent's question to
complainant, "Wa ka makaila sa ako?" ("Do you not know me?") confirms such character and his
potential to abuse the profession as a tool for bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating a stereotype

that is unreflective of the nobility of the profession. As officers of the court and of the law, lawyers
are granted the privilege to serve the public, not to bully them to submission.
Premises considered, the findings of fact of the IBP are adopted and approved. Respondent
Atty. Rene O. Medina is found to have violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.
Page 2 of 2

DIGEST No. 1 Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIGEST No. 1 Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIGEST No. 1 Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resurreccion, Kimberly R.

LCSR Case Digest No. 1

Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina

In administrative cases against lawyers, the required burden of proof is preponderance of

In this case, complainant discharged this burden.

Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating a stereotype

You might also like