ALAWI VS. ALAUYA A.M. NO.

SDC97-2-P FEBRUARY 24, 1997

Topics: Use of appellation attorney,
practice of law.
Facts of the Case:
Sophia Alawi is a sales representative of
EB Villarosa & Partners, Co. Ltd. Of
Davao City, while Ashari Alauya is an
incumbent executive clerk of court of
4th Judicial Sharia District in Marawi
City.
Alawi and Alauya were
classmates and friends.
Through
Alawis
agency,
a
contract
was
executed
for
the
purchase
on
installments by Alauya of one of the
housing units belonging to the above
mentioned firm. Thereafter, a housing
loan was granted to Alauya by the
National Home
Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC).
On December
15,1995, Alauya addressed a letter to
the
President
of
Villarosa
and
Co.advising the termination of contract
with the company, on the ground that
Alauyas consent was vitiated by gross
misrepresentation,
deceit,fraud,
dishonesty and abuse of confidence by
sales agent which makesthe contract
void ab initio. Alauya also wrote to Vice
President of Credit and Collection Group
of National Home Mortgage Finance
Corp.,
(NHMFC)
repudiating
as
fraudulent and void his contract with
Villarosa & Co. and asking for a
cancellation of his housing loan. Alauya
also wrote to Ms. Corazon Ordonez,
Head of Fiscal Management and Budget
Office, and to the Chief of Finance
Division of Supreme Court to stop
deductions from his salary. Alawi filed
on SC a verified complaint dated
January 25, 1996, to which she
appended a copy of the letter and
accused Alauya of:

Imputation of libellous charges with

no solid grounds through manifest
ignorance and evident bad faith.
Causing undue injury.
Unauthorized
postage.

enjoyment

of

free

Usurpation of the title attorney

which only regular members of the
Philippine Bar may use.
Alauya thereafter claims that Alawi was
only envious of him for being an
Executive Clerk of Court but also a scion
of a Royal Family. He also claimed that
Alawi falsified his signature. As with the
use of the title attorney, he justified it
by assertion that it is synonymous
with
Counselors-at-Law.
He
preferred to use attorney because
counselor
is
often
mistaken
for
councilor.
Issue:

Whether or not Alauya is guilty of

libellous charges without solid grounds
through bad faith.

Whether or not Alauya is entitled

to use the appellation attorney.
Court Ruling: The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. 6713) enunciates the
State policy of promoting a high
standard
of
ethics
and
utmost
responsibility in the public service.
Public officials and employees must at
all times respect the rights of others
and refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public
policy, public order, public safety and
public interest. The conduct of behavior
of every official and employee of an
agency involved in administration of
justice from presiding judge to the most
junior clerk,
should
be

circumscribed
with
heavy
burden
of responsibility. He must act with
justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. As to
Alauyas
usurpation
of
the
title
attorney, the Court has declared that
persons who passed the Sharia Bar are
not
full-fledge
members
of
the
Philippine bar. His disinclination to use
the title counselor does not warrant
his use of the title attorney In re
Meling, the Court said that the title
attorney is reserved only to those,
who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and
successfully
taken
the
Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and remain members thereof in good
standing, and it is they who are
authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.
TAN VS GALLARDO

Facts: Petitioners seek the annulment of

respondent Judge's Orders in certain
Criminal Cases. The Solicitor General
informed this Court, thus: that they are
"persuaded that there are bases for
stating that the rendition of respondent
Judge's decision and his resolution on
the motion for new trial were not free
from suspicion of bias and prejudice. It
was the submission of said official "that
the case should he remanded to the
trial court for the rendition of a new
decision and with instruction to receive
additional evidence proferred by the
accused with the right of the
prosecution
to
present
rebuttal
evidence as may be warranted. Private
prosecutors objected the remand of the
case. Petitioners contend that the
private prosecutors has no standing to
intervene. Private prosecutors contend
that they have the right to take part in
the proceedings and to take a stand
inconsistent with that of the SolGen.
Issue: WON Private prosecutors have
the right to intervene independently of
the Solicitor General and to adopt a
stand inconsistent with that of the latter
in the present proceedings.
HELD: No. Although the private
prosecutors may be permitted to
intervene, they are not in control of the
case,
and
their
interests
are
subordinate to those of the People of
the Philippines represented by the
fiscal. The position occupied by the
offended party is subordinate to that of
the promotor fiscal because, as
promotor fiscal alone is authorized to
represent the public prosecution, or the
People of the Philippine Islands, in the
prosecution of offenders, and to control
the proceeding. It is evident, therefore,
that since the Solicitor General alone is
authorized to represent the State or the
People of the Philippines the interest of

the private prosecutors is subordinate

to that of the State and they cannot be
allowed to take a stand inconsistent
with that of the Solicitor General, for
that would be tantamount to giving the
latter the direction and control of the
criminal proceedings, contrary to the
provisions of law and the settled rules
on the matter.
It is undisputed that the sole purpose of
courts of justice is to enforce the laws
uniformly and impartially without regard
to persons or their circumstances or the
opinions of men. A judge, according to
Justice Castro, now Chief Justice of this
Court, should strive to be at all times
"wholly free, disinterested, impartial
and independent. Elementary due
process requires a hearing before an
impartial and disinterested tribunal. A
judge has both the duty of rendering a
just decision and the duty, of doing it in
a manner completely free from
suspicion as to its fairness and as to his
integrity.
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
Facts: In this criminal action for
malversation, it is contended that the
trial court erred in allowing private
prosecutors Millora and Urbiztondo to
prosecute the case thereby allegedly
subjecting the accused to proceedings
marked by undue publicity, prejudgment, bias and political selfinterest. Atty. Vicente D. Millora, a
senior member of the provincial board
actually handled the prosecution of the
case from the preliminary investigation,
which started on June 5, 1969, up to the
termination of the trial on July 29, 1970.

At
the
commencement
of
the
preliminary investigation, the counsel
for the accused auditor inquired
whether Atty. Millora was authorized by
the provincial board to act as private
prosecutor in representation of the
province of Pangasinan, the offended
party. Atty. Millora replied that there
was a board resolution designating him
as a private prosecutor. The acting
provincial commander, who filed the
complaints manifested to the trial court
that he had authorized Atty. Millora to
act as private prosecutor.
Another defense counsel filed a written
motion to inhibit Millora and the others
as private prosecutors. The lower court
denied the motion. At trial, the city
fiscal
moved
"that
the
private
prosecutor (Millora) be authorized to
conduct the examination subject to our
(the fiscal's) control and supervision".
The trial court granted the motion.
Issue: WON There was compliance with
the rule that the criminal action should
be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the fiscal.
Held: Yes. The record shows that at
every hearing the provincial fiscal, the
city fiscal or an assistant fiscal were
present together with the private
prosecutor.
Under
the
foregoing
circumstances, we believe that there
was substantial compliance with the
rule that the criminal action should be
"prosecuted under the direction and
control of the fiscal" and that "the
provincial fiscal shall represent the
province" in any court (Sec.4, Rule 110,
Rules of Court; sec. 1683, Revised
Administrative Code).