ALAWI V. ALAUYA 1997Complainant: Sophia AlawiRespondent: Ashary M. Alauya (Clerk of Court VI, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City)Topic: Canon 9 (Unauthorized Practice of Law)

Facts Sophia Alawi was a sales representative or coordinator of EB Villarosa & Partners Co.,

Ltd. 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. The two were formerly classmates and friends.

Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to to Villarosa & Co. A housing loan was then granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

Alauya later addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising the termination of his contract with the company, alleging that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by Alawi.

Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the VP of Villarosa & Co., but it bore no stamps. It instead had the words “Free Postage-PD 26.” He also wrote to Fermin T. Arzaga, VP of NHMFC, repudiating as fraudulent his contract with Villarosa & Co. and asking for the cancellation of his housing loan. He wrote Arzaga 3 other letters asking for the same. He also wrote to Corazon M. Ordoñez, Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office of the Supreme Court, to stop deductions from his salary in relation to said loan. NHMFC wrote to the Court requesting it to stop deductions on Alauya’s loan, and negotiated for the refund of his payments.

Upon learning of Alauya’s letter, Alawi filed a verified complaint with the Court, alleging that Alauya made malicious and libelous charges against her with no solid grounds, that he caused her undue injury and blemished her honor and reputation, that he employed the unauthorized use of free postage privilege, and that he usurped the title of “attorney.” She sought his dismissal from the service or proper disciplinary action.

In Alauya’s reply, he averred that the comment had no factual basis and that Alawi was merely jealous of him for being the Executive Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff and District Registrar, and for being a scion of the Royal Family. In a subsequent and less aggressive letter, he also stated that his acts were done in good faith, that Alawi falsified his signature, thus fraudulently binding him to a housing loan contract entailing monthly deductions of P4,333.10 from his salary, totaling P26,028.60 in 6 months. He also denied abusing the franking privilege, saying that he gave P20 plus transportation fare to a subordinate to mail the letters, and if his letter was mixed with the Court’s official mail, it was an honest mistake.

o Alauya justified the use of the title “attorney” as being “lexically synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law,” a title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim. He prefers “attorney,” as “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal,” or “consial” (Maranao term).

o He asked for the Court’s compassion, as he was manipulated by his friend Alawi into signing a blank contract despite not knowing where the property even is. Alawi evaded him after he tried to clarify and ask for the completed document. She somehow acquired his GSIS policy from his wife, which she did not return until several months. Alawi forged his signature on pertinent documents regarding down payment, clearance, layout, salary deduction, etc.

o His 2 letters to the Clerk of Court and 2 other earlier letters to the Court were signed “Atty. Ashary M. Alauya,” while his comment was signed “Datu Ashary M. Alauya.”

Issues1. W/N Alauya conformed to the standards of conduct and ethics for public officials and

employees – NO

o In his letters, Alauya alleged that his consent was obtained by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence, that Alawi acted in bad faith and perpetrated illegal and unauthorized acts, that she was an unscrupulous and swindling sales agent, and that she had maliciously and fraudulently manipulated the contract.

o The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) commands that public officials and employees at all times must respect the rights of others, and must refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety, and public interest. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary.

o Alauya’s his conviction that he has been wronged and has a right of action against Alawi might temper, but does not justify, his deviation from the standard of conduct which he is bound to uphold. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. He must accord respect for the person and the rights of others at all times, and his every act and word must be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesty, and dignity.

W/N Alauya is entitled to use “Attorney” – NOo Persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine

Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari’a courts. They are counselors in a sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, but the title of “attorney” is reserved to those have obtained the necessary degree in the study of law, have successfully taken the Bar Examinations, and have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (and remain members in good standing).

o His disinclination to use the title of “counsellor” does not warrant his use of the title of attorney.

HELD: Alauya is hereby reprimanded for the use excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language and for usurping the title of attorney. He is warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.