8/30/23, 11:00 PM G.R. No. SDC-97-2-P 8/30/23, 11:00 PM G.R. No.

SDC-97-2-P
maliciously and fraudulently manipulated said contract and unlawfully secured and
Today is Wednesday, August 30, 2023
pursued the housing loan without my authority and against my will. Thus, the contract
itself is deemed to be void ab initio in view of the attending circumstances, that my
consent was vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and abuse of
confidence; and that there was no meeting of the minds between me and the swindling
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive sales agent who concealed the real facts from me.

And, as in his letter to Villarosa & Co., he narrated in some detail what he took to be the anomalous
actuations of Sophia Alawi.
Republic of the Philippines Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr. Arzaga of the NHMFC, dated February 21, 1996, April 15, 1996, and May 3,
SUPREME COURT 1996, in all of which, for the same reasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellation of his housing loan and
Manila discontinuance of deductions from his salary on account thereof. a He also wrote on January 18, 1996 to Ms. Corazon M. Ordoñez,
Head of the Fiscal Management & Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance Division, both of this Court, to stop deductions from his salary in relation to the loan in
THIRD DIVISION question, again asserting the anomalous manner by which he was allegedly duped into entering into the contracts by "the scheming sales agent." b

The upshot was that in May, 1996, the NHMFC wrote to the Supreme Court requesting it to stop deductions on Alauya's UHLP loan "effective May 1996." and
began negotiating with Villarosa & Co. " for the buy-back of . . . (Alauya's) mortgage. and . . the refund of . . (his) payments." c

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997 On learning of Alauya's letter to Villarosa & Co. of December 15, 1995, Sophia Alawi filed with this Court a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996 — to which
she appended a copy of the letter, and of the above mentioned envelope bearing the typewritten words, "Free Postage - PD 26."1 In that complaint, she accused
SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant, Alauya of:

vs.
1. "Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and
ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City, respondent.
evident bad faith;"

2. "Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation;"
NARVASA, C.J.:
3. "Unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage . . .;" and
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a sales representative (or coordinator) of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co.,
Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of 4. Usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may properly
the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends. use.

It appears that through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of She deplored Alauya's references to her as "unscrupulous swindler, forger, manipulator, etc." without "even a bit of
the housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm (hereafter, simply Villarosa & Co.); and in connection evidence to cloth (sic) his allegations with the essence of truth," denouncing his imputations as irresponsible, "all
therewith, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled with manifest ignorance and evident bad faith," and asserting that all her
(NHMFC). dealings with Alauya had been regular and completely transparent. She closed with the plea that Alauya "be
dismissed from the senice, or be appropriately desciplined (sic) . . ."
Not long afterwards, or more precisely on December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of
Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the company. He wrote: The Court resolved to order Alauya to comment on the complaint, Conformably with established usage that notices
of resolutions emanate from the corresponding Office of the Clerk of Court, the notice of resolution in this case was
. . I am formally and officially withdrawing from and notifying you of my intent to terminate the signed by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant Division Clerk of Court.2
Contract/Agreement entered into between me and your company, as represented by your Sales
Agent/Coordinator, SOPHIA ALAWI, of your company's branch office here in Cagayan de Oro City, on Alauya first submitted a "Preliminary Comment"3 in which he questioned the authority of Atty. Marasigan to require
the grounds that my consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and an explanation of him, this power pertaining, according to him, not to "a mere Asst. Div. Clerk of Court investigating
abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales agent which made said contract void ab initio. Said sales an Executive Clerk of Court." but only to the District Judge, the Court Administrator or the Chief Justice, and voiced
agent acting in bad faith perpetrated such illegal and unauthorized acts which made said contract an the suspicion that the Resolution was the result of a "strong link" between Ms. Alawi and Atty. Marasigan's office. He
Onerous Contract prejudicial to my rights and interests. He then proceeded to expound in considerable also averred that the complaint had no factual basis; Alawi was envious of him for being not only "the Executive
detail and quite acerbic language on the "grounds which could evidence the bad faith. deceit, fraud, Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff and District Registrar." but also "a scion of a Royal Family . . ."4
misrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the unscrupulous sales agent . . .;" and
closed with the plea that Villarosa & Co. "agree for the mutual rescission of our contract, even as I In a subsequent letter to Atty. Marasigan, but this time in much less aggressive, even obsequious tones,5 Alauya
inform you that I categorically state on record that I am terminating the contract . . . I hope I do not have requested the former to give him a copy of the complaint in order that he might comment thereon.6 He stated that
to resort to any legal action before said onerous and manipulated contract against my interest be his acts as clerk of court were done in good faith and within the confines of the law; and that Sophia Alawi, as sales
annulled. I was actually fooled by your sales agent, hence the need to annul the controversial contract." agent of Villarosa & Co. had, by falsifying his signature, fraudulently bound him to a housing loan contract entailing
monthly deductions of P4,333.10 from his salary.
Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the Vice-President of Villarosa & Co. at San Pedro, Gusa, Cagayan
de Oro City. The envelope containing it, and which actually went through the post, bore no stamps. And in his comment thereafter submitted under date of June 5, 1996, Alauya contended that it was he who had
Instead at the right hand corner above the description of the addressee, the words, "Free Postage - PD suffered "undue injury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold financial suffering,"
26," had been typed. considering that in six months, a total of P26,028.60 had been deducted from his salary.7 He declared that there was
no basis for the complaint; in communicating with Villarosa & Co. he had merely acted in defense of his rights. He
On the same date, December 15, 1995, Alauya also wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President, denied any abuse of the franking privilege, saying that he gave P20.00 plus transportation fare to a subordinate
Credit & Collection Group of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) at Salcedo whom he entrusted with the mailing of certain letters; that the words: "Free Postage - PD 26," were typewritten on
Village, Makati City, repudiating as fraudulent and void his contract with Villarosa & Co.; and asking for the envelope by some other person, an averment corroborated by the affidavit of Absamen C. Domocao, Clerk IV
cancellation of his housing loan in connection therewith, which was payable from salary deductions at (subscribed and sworn to before respondent himself, and attached to the comment as Annex J);8 and as far as he
the rate of P4,338.00 a month. Among other things, he said: knew, his subordinate mailed the letters with the use of the money he had given for postage, and if those letters
were indeed mixed with the official mail of the court, this had occurred inadvertently and because of an honest
. . . (T)hrough this written notice, I am terminating, as I hereby annul, cancel, rescind and mistake.9
voided, the "manipulated contract" entered into between me and the E.B. Villarosa &
Partner Co., Ltd., as represented by its sales agent/coordinator, SOPHIA ALAWI, who

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/am_97_2_p__1997.html 1/5 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/am_97_2_p__1997.html 2/5

8/30/23, 11:00 PM G.R. No. SDC-97-2-P 8/30/23, 11:00 PM G.R. No. SDC-97-2-P
Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by the assertion that it is "lexically synonymous" with "Counsellors-at- accord respect for the person and the rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be
law." a title to which Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of "attorney" because characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical deviation from these salutary norms might
"counsellor" is often mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal" or the Maranao term "consial," connoting a local legislator perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by his strongly held conviction that he had been grievously wronged.
beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who
He pleads for the Court's compassion, alleging that what he did "is expected of any man unduly prejudiced and pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a
injured." 10 He claims he was manipulated into reposing his trust in Alawi, a classmate and friend. 11 He was induced courts. 21 While one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine
to sign a blank contract on Alawi's assurance that she would show the completed document to him later for Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity,
correction, but she had since avoided him; despite "numerous letters and follow-ups" he still does not know where only the latter is an "attorney." The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree
the property — subject of his supposed agreement with Alawi's principal, Villarosa & Co. — is situated; 12 He says in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the
Alawi somehow got his GSIS policy from his wife, and although she promised to return it the next day, she did not Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in
do so until after several months. He also claims that in connection with his contract with Villarosa & Co., Alawi this jurisdiction.
forged his signature on such pertinent documents as those regarding the down payment, clearance, lay-out, receipt
of the key of the house, salary deduction, none of which he ever saw. 13 Alauya says he does not wish to use the title, "counsellor" or "counsellor-at-law, " because in his region, there are
pejorative connotations to the term, or it is confusingly similar to that given to local legislators. The ratiocination,
Averring in fine that his acts in question were done without malice, Alauya prays for the dismissal of the complaint valid or not, is of no moment. His disinclination to use the title of "counsellor" does not warrant his use of the title of
for lack of merit, it consisting of "fallacious, malicious and baseless allegations." and complainant Alawi having come attorney.
to the Court with unclean hands, her complicity in the fraudulent housing loan being apparent and demonstrable.
22
Finally, respecting Alauya's alleged unauthorized use of the franking privilege, the record contains no evidence
It may be mentioned that in contrast to his two (2) letters to Assistant Clerk of Court Marasigan (dated April 19, 1996 adequately establishing the accusation.
and April 22, 1996), and his two (2) earlier letters both dated December 15, 1996 — all of which he signed as "Atty.
Ashary M. Alauya" — in his Comment of June 5, 1996, he does not use the title but refers to himself as "DATU WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessively intemperate,
ASHARY M. ALAUYA." insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial officer, and for 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.
The Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. 14
SO ORDERED.
The first accusation against Alauya is that in his aforesaid letters, he made "malicious and libelous charges (against
Alawi) with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith, resulting in "undue injury to (her) and Davide, Jr., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, Jr., JJ., concur.
blemishing her honor and established reputation." In those letters, Alauya had written inter alia that:
Footnotes
1) Alawi obtained his consent to the contracts in question "by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and
abuse of confidence;" a Annexes B, B, B-1, B-3 of Alauya's Comment dated June 5, 1996.

2) Alawi acted in bad faith and perpetrated . . . illegal and unauthorized acts . . . prejudicial to . . (his) rights and b Annexes F and G, id.
interests;"
c Annex C-2, id.
3) Alawi was an "unscrupulous (and "swindling") sales agent" who had fooled him by "deceit, fraud,
1 Annexes A and A-1 of complaint; Rollo at p. 14; copies of the letter were also furnished the National
misrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence;" and
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, The Finance Management and Budget Office and-the Financial
4) Alawi had maliciously and fraudulently manipulated the contract with Villarosa & Co., and unlawfully secured and Division of the Supreme Court.
pursued the housing loan without . . (his) authority and against . . (his) will," and "concealed the real facts . . ."
2 Resolution dated March 25, 1996.
Alauya's defense essentially is that in making these statements, he was merely acting in defense of his rights, and
3 Dated April 19, 1996.
doing only what "is expected of any man unduly prejudiced and injured," who had suffered "mental anguish,
sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold financial suffering, considering that in six months, a total of 4 Rollo at p. 23.
P26,028.60 had been deducted from his salary. 15
5 Evidently, he had since become aware of the immemorial practice that NOTICES (or communications
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) inter alia enunciates the informing) of Resolutions adopted by the Court En Banc or any of its three (3) Divisions are sent to the
State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. 16 Section 4 of the parties by and over the signature of the corresponding Clerk or Court or his Assistant, the Court's
Code commands that "(p)ublic officials and employees . . at all times respect the rights of others, and . . refrain from Resolutions being incorporated verbatim in said notices.
doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest."
17
More than once has this Court emphasized that "the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an 6 Dated April 22, 1996.
agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among 7 Rollo at p. 28.
others, strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary." 18
8 Id at p. 60.
Now, it does not appear to the Court consistent with good morals, good customs or public policy, or respect for the
rights of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed — however sincerely — to be deceitful, fraudulent or 9 id. at p. 32.
malicious, in excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a
right of action against Sophia Alawi. The law requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without malice or 10 Id. at p. 34.
vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone; in a manner consistent with good morals, good customs, public policy,
public order, supra; or otherwise stated, that he "act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and 11 Id. at p. 35, et seq.
good
12 Id. at p. 35.
faith." 19 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 13 Id.
more stringent than for most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is
abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. 20 As a judicial employee, it is expected that he 14 See Resolution of the Court en banc dated August 21, 1996; Rollo at p. 61 et seq.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/am_97_2_p__1997.html 3/5 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/am_97_2_p__1997.html 4/5
8/30/23, 11:00 PM G.R. No. SDC-97-2-P
15 SEE footnote No. 7, supra.

16 Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272, 275.

17 R.A. No. 6713. Section 11 of the same law punishes any violation of the Act with (1) a fine not
exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary, or (2) suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or (3)
removal, depending on the gravity of the offense, after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body
or agency, and even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

18 Apaga v. Ponce, 245 SCRA 233, 240, citing Callejo, Jr. v. Garcia, etc., 206 SCRA 491; Angeles v.
Bantug, et al., 209 SCRA 413; Icasiano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 2109 SCRA 377; Medilo, et al. v.
Asodisen, etc., 233 SCRA 68: SEE also Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272, 275.

19 Art. 19, Civil Code.

20 Rules 8.01 and 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which should apply by analogy to
Members of the Shari'a Bar. The Code also proscribes behavior in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession (Rule 7.03).

21 Resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 5, 1993 in Bar Matter No. 681, entitled "Petition to
allow Shari'a lawyers to exercise their profession at the regular courts;." SEE Rule 138 (secs. 1, 4),
Rules of Court.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/am_97_2_p__1997.html 5/5