ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY.

CASTRO
FACTS:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private
practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainants office to inquire
whether the records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent
was not the counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, You mean to say,
I would have to go to Manila to get a copy? Complainant replied that respondent may show
instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that complainant
shouldve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the respondent of
such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging the door so
loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother,
you woman!)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the hearing of the case
in view of the respondents public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10,000 with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he
will enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the
clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not
that he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only
ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainants
subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8. The penalty was
tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the latter accepted it.
This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are
accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards.