7/25/2019 Case Digests Original
1/3
Alawi vs. Alauya
Facts:
Alawi herein is a sales representative while
respondent Alauya is the incumbent executiveclerk of the Sharia
District in Marawi. hey wereclass mates and used to be friends.
here was a contract executed for the purchase
on instalments by Alauya throu!h Alawisa!ency and in connection"
a housin! loan wasalso !ranted to Alauya by #$MF%.
$owever" Alauya contested that the contract isnot at all bindin!
and void ab initio for the!rounds that his consent to si!n the
contractwas vitiated by !ross misrepresentation" deceit"fraud"
dishonesty and abuse of con&dence bythe aforesaid sales
a!ent.
'pon learnin! of the of the letters sent byAlauya" Alawi
&led a complaint a!ainst therespondent on the !rounds that
alle!ations byAlauya were all malicious and libelous char!eswith no
solid !rounds throu!h manifesti!norance and evident bad faith that
causedundue in(ury to" and blemishin! her honor andestablished
reputation and usurpation of the
title of )attorney* which should only be used bythose who are
member of the +ar.
,ssue:
-# alle!ations a!ainst Alauya are with merits.
/ulin!:
he %ode of %onduct and 0thical Standards for
1ublic 2cials and 0mployees enunciates theState policy of
promotin! a hi!h standard ofethics and utmost responsibility in the
publicservice.
Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a ri!htof action
a!ainst Sophia Alawi. he law re3uiresthat he exercise that ri!ht
with propriety"without malice or vindictiveness" or undue harmto
anyone4 in a manner consistent with !oodmorals" !ood customs"
public policy" publicorder" supra4 or otherwise stated" that he
5actwith (ustice" !ive everyone his due" and observehonesty and
!ood faith.5
/i!hteous indi!nation" or vindication of ri!ht
cannot (ustify resort to vituperative lan!ua!e" ordownri!ht
name6callin!.
As a man of the law" he may not use lan!ua!ewhich is abusive"
o7ensive" scandalous"menacin!" or otherwise improper.89;As a
(udicialemployee" it is expected that he accord respectfor the
person and the ri!hts of others at alltimes" and that his every act
and word shouldbe characteried!ed members of the 1hilippine+ar"
hence may only practice law before Shari=acourts.89?;-hile one who
has been admitted to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_sdc_97_2_p.htm#_edn23
7/25/2019 Case Digests Original
3/3
thus does not deserve admission to the1hilippine +ar.
here are solid evidences that would clearly
show that /ana appeared and si!ned as counselfor +unan and a
certain 0mily 0stipona6$ao. Allthese happened even before
respondent tookthe lawyers oath.
he re!ulation of law is un3uestionably strict"
under Section C @e of /ule ? of the /ules of
%ourt" a person who en!a!es in theunauthori
