Atty. Rosalie Dallong- Galicinao, Complainant, v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro, Respondent’s | Adm. Case No.

6396 | 25 October 2005

November 12, 2017

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 complainant’s 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 should’ve 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 won’t appear in the hearing of the case in view of the
respondent’s public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.

Issue:

Did the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility given his actions towards the
complainant?

Held:

Yes, the Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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 incentives to the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered
but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainant’s 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.

The respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning
that any similar infraction with be dealt with more severely