Complainant

Complainant: Foodsphere Inc.
a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing

and manufacture and distribution of canned goods and grocery products under the
brand name "CDO,"
Respondent: Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr.
Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as "Batas Mauricio" (respondent), a
writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO
and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast
over UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB
Facts:
Complainant filed a Verified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Melanio L.
Mauricio, Jr. for
(1) grossly immoral conduct;
(2) violation of lawyer’s oath and
(3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.
On June 22, 2004, a certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a
grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. On June
27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread,
they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can.
Cordero’s wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration
(BFAD). Laboratory examination confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver
spread.
Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, the BFAD
conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses Cordero
demanded ₱150,000 as damages from complainant.
Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of

company policy and, in any event, "outrageous."
Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and incidental expenses incurred
by the Corderos as long as they were supported by receipts, but the offer was turned
down. And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the attention of the media.
Complainant was later required by the BFAD to file its Answer to the complaint. In the
meantime or on August 6, 2004, respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of the front
page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS,
Vol. 1, No. 122 which complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and
imputing vices and defects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to publish the
articles unless complainant gave in to the ₱150,000 demand of the Corderos.
Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but
respondent turned it down.
Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for ₱50,000, ₱15,000 of which would go
to the Corderos and ₱35,000 to his Batas Foundation. And respondent directed
complainant to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television program.
1The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN 3 seeking the withdrawal of their

complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. 4 Respondent,
who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his
articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.
On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an Advertising Contract 5 asking
complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for its next 24 weekly
issues at ₱15,000 per issue or a total amount of ₱360,000, and a Program Profile 6 of
the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place
spot advertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at
₱4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at ₱7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26
spots] of 30-second TVC for ₱130,000.
As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in the
tabloid amounting to ₱45,000 at ₱15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-
second TVC in the television program at ₱7,700 each or a total of ₱23,100. Acting on
complainant’s offer, respondent relayed to it that he and his Executive Producer were
disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of the
articles/columns.
On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program Double B- Batas ng Bayan at
radio station DZBB, announced the holding of a supposed contest sponsored by said
program, which announcement was transcribed as follows:
"OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas
Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa
telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod
pero ito muna ang contest, o, ‘aling liver spread ang may uod?’ Yan kita ninyo yan,
ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling
liver spread ang may uod at anong companya ang gumagawa nyan? Itawag po
ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating
tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong,
aling liver spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod?
And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put complainant in
bad light. Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas BATAS,
he wrote an article captioned "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!" In another article,
he wrote "IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!" 9 which appeared in the same
publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication, its
September 14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article entitled "DAPAT BANG PIGILIN
ANG CDO."10
Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his column LAGING HANDA
published in another tabloid, BAGONG TIKTIK, with the following articles: 11 (a) "Uod sa
liver spread," Setyembre 6, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276); 12 (b) "Uod, itinanggi ng CDO,"
Setyembre 7, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277);13 (c) "Pagpapatigil sa CDO," Setyembre 8, 2004
(Taon 7, Blg.278);14 (d) "Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado," Setyembre 9, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.279);15 (e) "Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod," Setyembre 10, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.280);16 (f) "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," Setyembre 11, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.281); 17 (g)
"Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO guards," Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.284);18 (h) "Brutalidad ng CDO guards," Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.285); 19 (i)
"CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP," Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287); 20 (j)
"May uod na CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili," Setyembre 18, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.288);21 (k) "Desperado na ang CDO," Setyembre 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290); 22 (l)
"Atty. Rufus Rodriguez pumadrino sa CDO," Setyembre 21, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg.
291);23 (m) "Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero," Setyembre 22, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg.
292);24 (n) "Bakit nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO," Setyembre 23, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg.
293).25
In his September 8, 2004 column "Anggulo ng Batas" published in Hataw!, respondent
wrote an article "Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread." 26
And respondent, in several episodes in September 2004 of his television program
Kakampi Mo ang Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly complained of what complainant
claimed to be the "same baseless and malicious allegations/issues" against it. 27
CONTENTION OF THE COMPLAINANT
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for
Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal
Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The
complaints were pending at he time of the filing of the present administrative complaint.
In the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S. Nos. V-04-2917-2933, respondent filed his Entry of
Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of
Justice,29 alleging:
The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City?
Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to
happen?
Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this Office would ever act on
his complaint?
With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an
investigating prosecutor virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief
Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted to them?
With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that justice would elude
them in this Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice
of their cause, but, more importantly, because of the injustice of the system;
Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in Valenzuela City had
been the willing recipient of too many generosities in the past of the Complainant, and
also with reports that a top official of the City had campaigned for his much coveted
position in the past distributing products of the Complainant, what would one expect the
Respondents to think?
Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior displayed even by
mere staff and underlings of this Office to people who dare complain against the
Complainant in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials of this Office should
investigate and ask their associates and relatives incognito to file, even if on a
pakunwari basis only, complaints against the Complainant, and they would surely be
given the same rough and insulting treatment that Respondent Villarez got when he
filed his kidnapping charge here;
And in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of Jurisdiction 31 which respondent filed,
as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of the newspaper Hataw!, before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent alleged:
If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is inside their
thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction over
this action.32 (Emphasis supplied)
After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderoseventually forged a
KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before theBFAD. The BFAD
thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., whoaffixed his signature to the
KASUNDUAN
as a witness.
Later respondent sent complainant an Advertising Contract asking complainant to advertisehis
television program kakampi mo ang batas in tabloids and spot advertisements. As a signof
goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in the tabloidamounting to
P45,000 at P15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second TVC in thetelevision
program at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Respondent relayed to thecomplainant that he and
his Executive Producer were discontented with the offer of thecomplainant and threatened to
proceed with the publication of the articles/columns. Laterrespondent wrote in his columns in the
tabloids articles which put complainant in bad lightand aired in several episodes of his television
program Kakampi Mo ang Batas repeatedlymaligning the complainant.

Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel
andThreatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code beforethe
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints
were pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the penden
cy of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo
orderrestraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative
tothe complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and
its products.

Complainant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant: Foodsphere Inc.

a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing

Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of

1The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN 3 seeking the withdrawal of their

You might also like