A lawyer was suspended by the Supreme Court (SC) for one year and six months for urging police officers to shoot and kill her nephew during an altercation and for using “intemperate and abusive language” in her pleadings.

The Supreme Court imposed the penalty on lawyer Leticia Ala following a complaint lodged by her brother-in-law, French national Denis Guy Martin.

The records showed that in January 2017, Ala filed a deportation complaint against Martin. Later that year, in April, an altercation occurred between Ala and Martin’s son, Jean-Marc, which led Martin to file a disbarment complaint against her.

Martin alleged that Ala urged responding police officers to shoot and kill Jean-Marc. He also said she represented conflicting interests when she filed the deportation case and continued to use abusive language.

Ala vehemently denied the allegations of Martin.

In its decision on 5 February, the Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, finding Ala guilty of unlawful conduct and using intemperate and abusive language.

It quoted the police report on the incident which had her telling the law enforcers to shoot and kill Jean-Marc before he attacked them. She also told them nobody would complain if they shot him. However, the police told her that Jean-Marc had not done anything to justify the use of force against him.

Ala was meted out a six-month suspension for her statements to the police and a one-year suspension for her intemperate and abusive language.

The SC in the ruling written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. said: “Verily, the respondent’s actions in this case demonstrate a conscious disrespect of the laws and legal processes in repeatedly pressing the responding police officers to shoot Jean-Marc despite the apparent absence of any cause to warrant such police action. Worse, her actions betrayed a marked disregard for her nephew’s basic right not to be deprived of life and liberty without due process of the law.”

The court acknowledged that Ala’s statements may have been due to fear or distress and the need to protect her family, given that it was not the first time the police were called over Jean-Marc’s actions.

It said that lawyers must always uphold the law and its processes.

Ala was found liable for her statements that accused Martin and his counsel of tampering with records, questioned his dignity, and criticized his lawyer’s knowledge of basic legal forms and of the law.

In her submissions in the deportation case, she had accused them of having “little minds” and of “braggadocio,” and referred to his counsel as a “lawyer-operator.”

Ala also wondered if Martin’s counsel studied the same law books she did at the University of the Philippines, as the lawyer supposedly resorted to “tonsorial justice” or only cited jurisprudence that suited their views.

“To the Court’s mind, respondent’s statements confirmed her arrogance and manifest lack of restraint in the use and choice of her words, constituting a clear violation of Canon II, Sections 4 and 13 of the CPRA,” the court said.

The High Court said there was no basis for holding her liable for conflict of interest, as she represented herself in the deportation case and there was no indication that she used any information previously acquired from Martin.

Ala was meted out a six-month suspension for her statements to the police and a one-year suspension for her intemperate and abusive language.