The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the dismissal of the administrative complaint for alleged violations of the lawyer’s oath filed against lawyer Manases R. Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, and another lawyer. In a resolution issued on June 14, 2023 but made public last July 27, the SC affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on the dismissal of the complaint not only against Carpio but also against lawyer Edgar Dennis A. Padernal. The complaint against the two lawyers was filed by Honegger spouses Alfredo, a Swiss national, and Lumenaria, a Filipino, for allegedly filing and prosecuting cases that were frivolous and baseless and merely intended to harass and oppress the couple. Case records showed that between the years 2014 to 2018, the Honegger spouses became defendants or respondents in a number of legal actions or proceedings before local courts and agencies. Among these were a collection case before the regional trial court (RTC) in Manila where the Honegger spouses were ordered to jointly pay the complainant, Bernhard Antno Burch, another Swiss national, the amount of P6.5 million, including interest; an estafa case filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila; a cyber libel case before the OCP of Manila; three cases for violations of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act (RTL Act) and/or Anti-Dummy Law; and a deportation case. Carpio was the lawyer in the cases for violations of the RTL Act and/or the Anti-Dummy Law, while Padernal was Burch’s lawyer in the collection case, estafa, and the cyber libel case. On the deportation case, Carpio also appeared as counsel. In their defense against the administrative complaint, Carpio and Padernal said the cases against the Honeggers were not frivolous or baseless as they were the legitimate grievances of their clients. On Jan. 15, 2021, the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended the dismissal of the complaint.  On Feb. 12, 2022, the IBP’s Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the CBD. Ruling on the complaint, the SC said: “We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD, as approved by the IBP- BOG. “Attys. Padernal and Carpio are charged with filing and prosecuting cases that they supposedly knew were baseless and meant merely to harass Alfredo and Lumenaria. “Clearly, the charge is premised on the key assumption that the cases which Attys. Padernal and Carpio filed or prosecuted were frivolous. The establishment of such assumption as a matter of fact is thus essential to hold Attys. Padernal and Carpio administratively liable. “In this case, however, We find -- like the IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG -- that the records are devoid of anything that proves the above key assumption. “Alfredo and Lumenaria failed to adduce any evidence to support their claim that the cases filed against them were merely intended to vex and harass. “On the contrary, a review of the submissions of Attys. Padernal and Carpio provided prima facie indication that the said cases had been impelled by legitimate antecedents. “Indeed, the mere filing and prosecution by Attys. Padernal and Carpio of multiple suits against Alfredo and Lumenaria do not, by themselves, constitute unethical conduct deserving of administrative sanction. To be sure, Attys. Padernal and Carpio are allowed to resort to any and all legal means, including the institution of appropriate cases, to protect the interests of their clients or seek redress on their behalf. “The Code of Professional Responsibility, in fact, expects nothing less from lawyers of clients with legitimate grievances. “In the absence of any indication that the suits against Alfredo and Lumenaria have been filed or prosecuted with bad faith, or on the basis of concocted claims or baseless legal arguments, Attys. Padernal and Carpio cannot be penalized for their resort to remedies allowed by law. “Wherefore, the Complaint against Atty. Edgar Dennis A. Padernal and Atty. Manases R. Carpio is dismissed for lack of merit.”