SOPHIA ALAWI vs ASHARY M.

ALAUYA
AM SDC-97-2-P
CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Proper use of the Title “Attorney”
February 24, 1997

FACTS:
Sophia Alawi was or is still a sales agent of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co. of Davao City, a real
estate and housing company.

Ashary M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District
in Marawi City and a Shari’a lawyer.

They were former classmates and friends.

It appears that through Alawi’s agency a contract for purchase of Alauya for one of the housing
units of the Villarosa company was executed in connection with National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation (NHMFC) for a housing loan for said purchase with monthly installments
of P4,338.00 deductible from Alauya’s salary. (no info when said contract was executed)

On Dec. 15, 1995 Alauya sent a letter to the President of Villaroya advising the termination of
his contract on the grounds that Sophia Alawi “vitiated his consent by gross
misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence” making the contract
void ab initio. He also wrote that Alawi acted in “bad faith perpetrated such illegal and
unauthorized acts” which made said contract an Onerous Contract prejudicial to his rights and
interests. Stating that he hopes he doesn’t have to resort to legal action for the termination of
said contract. (nanakot pa siya)

Alauya also mentioned a detailed and in quite acerbic/disrespectful language with references
to Alawi as “unscrupulous, swindler, forger, manipulator, scheming,” among others. Claiming
that Alawi forged his signatures to obtain his consent and concealed real facts from him.
Alauya sent similar letters to the VP of Villarosa, as well as to the VP for Credit and Collection
of NHMFC, all with ‘Free Postage--PD 26” typed on the envelopes and signed Atty. Ashary M.
Alauya

In May 1996 NHMFC wrote to the SC requesting it to stop the salary deductions on Alauya’s
loan and began negotiations with Villarosa for the buy-back of ALauya’s mortgage and the
refund of payments.

In learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed a verified complaint on Jan. 25, 1996 to which she
appended a copy of the letter with the envelope bearing the free postage typed on it. She
accused Alauya of:
1. Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest
ignorance and bad faith;
2. Causing undue injury and blemishing her honor and established reputation;
3. Unauthorized enjoyment of free postage...;” and
4. Usurpation of the title “attorney,” which only regular members of the Philippine Bar
may properly use.
The Court resolved to order Alauya to comment on the complaint conformably with the notices
of resolution from the Office of the Clerk of Court signed by Atty. Alfredo Marasigan.

Alauya filed a Preliminary Comment questioning the authority of Atty. Marasigan to require an
explanation from him because he is an Executive Clerk of Court who should only answer to the
District Judge, Court Administrator or the Chief Justice. (mayabang tong kamoteng to,
infairness) and claimed that Atty. Marasigan is envious of him for his position and also a scion
of a Royal family...(mayabang di ba? medyo nainis ako basahin to but wait there’s more)

And then Alauya sent another less mayabang letter requesting Atty. Marasigan for a copy of
Alawi’s complaint against him, that he suffered undue injury and mental anguish blah blah and
that he entrusted the mailing of said letters with the free postage to a subordinate to whom he
gave a sum of money to mail the letters, not knowing that the letters were mixed with the other
official mail from the Court. He also justified his improper use of the title “attorney” by
asserting that it was “lexically synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law,” a title to which Shari’a
lawyers have rightful claim and he used attorney because counsellor is often mistaken for
councilor or konsehal. And that he doesn’t consider himself a lawyer. (hmph!)

Alauya prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against him for lack of merit, it consisting of
“fallacious, malicious and baseless allegations,” and complainant Alawi came to Court with
“unclean hands.”

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Ashary Alauya’s action constitute a misconduct and a violation
of The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees;
and
2. Whether or not he is authorized to use the title “attorney”

HELD:
1. Yes. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA
6713) inter alia enunciates the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and
utmost responsibility in the public service. 16 16 Section 4 of the Code commands that
"public officials and employees . . . 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." Righteous indignation, or vindication of right cannot
justify resort to vituperative language or downright name calling. As a member of the Shari’a
Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent than
most other government workers. His radical deviation from these salutary norms might
perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by his strongly held conviction that he had been
grievously wronged.

2. No. The title of “attorney”is reserved to those who, having obtained 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; it is only they
who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessive
intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial officer, and
usurping the title of attorney and he is warned that any similar or other impropriety or
misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.