Case Digest in PALE: Deles v. Aragona, Jr.

AM No. 598; Mar. 28, 1969; J. Castro

Facts:
Aurora Soriano Deles, complainant , filed a verified lettercomplaint against Atty. Vicente E. Aragona, Jr. , respondent,
for having made, under oath, false and unfounded allegations
against Deles in a motion filed in Court of Agrarian Relations,
Iloilo, cases 1254 and 1255, which allegedly caused hergreat
mentaltorture and moral suffering.
The CAR Case -- an intestate court issued an order denying a
proposed lease of 10 hectares of the estate by Deles to one
Carlos Fuentes and sustaining the possession of Enrique
Soriano (brother of Deles) as lessee of said land. In effect, the
order likewise sustained the possession by the brothers
Federico and Carlos Aglinao of a portion of the said land being
tenanted by themupon authority of the lessee, Enrique.
IN DISREGARD OF THE ORDER, Deles attempted to take
possession of the landholdings by placing thereon her own
tenants. The Aglinaos countered by filing against Deles two
petitions with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Iloilo. After a
hearing, the men of Deles entered the land in question and
planted rice thereon, this unauthorized entry prompted Atty.
Aragona to file an "Urgent Motion for Issuance of
Interlocutory Order" praying that Deles, her agent, or any
person acting for and in her behalf from interfering with the
work of the Aglinaos in their respective landholdings. Mrs.
Soriano (wife of Enrique) went to see Atty. Aragano - she told
him that she was personally present when one Albert, a tenant
of Deles, accompanied by armed men, went to the land in
question and harvested the palay thereon over the protests f
the Aglinaos; and that she was told that they were acting upon

orders of the Deles. POSSESSED OF THE ABOVE

INFORMATION, Atty. Aragona promptly prepared and filed
with the CAR an "Urgent Motion to Declare [Deles] in
Contempt of Court."
Issue/s:
Whether Atty. Aragona should be disciplined or disbarred for
having prepared and filed under oath the said motion.
Held:
No.
#1 -- In People vs. Aquino, this Court laid down the decisional
authority that [S]tatement made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged that is, privileged
regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice
if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause
in hand or subject of the inquiry. And that, in view of this, the
person who makes them such as a judge, lawyer, or witness
does not thereby incur the risk of being found liable
thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery
of damages. (emphasis supplied)
Since there is no doubt that the allegations made by the
respondent in the questioned motion for contempt are
statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding i.e.,
in C.A.R. cases 1254 and 1255 besides being relevant,
pertinent or material to the subject-matter of the said cases,
they are absolutely privileged, thereby precluding any liability
on the part of the respondent.

#2 -- Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is

probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is
made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the
mistake of the individual. Xxx. The ultimate test is that of bona
fides.
Indeed, the actuations of Atty. Aragano were motivated by the
legitimate desire to serve the interests of his clients -- Mrs.
Soriano informed Atty. Aragano of the incident coupled with
Deles' admissions.