EN BANC
ATTY. RAMON P. REYES,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5148
July 1, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
VICTORIANO
T. CHIONG JR.,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
Lawyers should treat each
other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and the
hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport
with each other as professionals and members of the bar. The Case
Before us is a Sworn
Complaint[1]
filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of
this
Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for
violation
of his lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
After the Third Division of this Court referred the case to the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
resolved
to suspend him as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"x x x [C]onsidering
that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him to the obligation
that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. In
addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that
a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga
in Civil Case No. 4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal
ground
to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as well as the
above-quoted
Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is
hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years."[2]
The Facts
In his Complaint, Atty.
Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged
by one Zonggi Xu,[3]
a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry. Xu
invested
P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory
being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese
residing
in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the
latter
had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his
money
back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to seek
legal
assistance.cralaw:red
Xu, through herein complainant,
filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by
respondent.
The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned to Assistant
Manila
City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a subpoena for Pan to
appear for preliminary investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998.
The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted
his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal
Complaint[4]
for estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.[5]
On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest[6]
against Pan.cralaw:red
Thereafter, respondent
filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest.[7]
He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the
collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution
of a business venture against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.cralaw:red
When confronted by complainant,
respondent explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute the
civil
action against Atty. Reyes. Respondent claimed he would suggest
to
his client to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the
dismissal
of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to reach a
settlement.chanrobles virtual law library
In his Comment[8]
dated January 27, 2000, respondent argued that he had shown no
disrespect
in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884.
He claimed that there was no basis to conclude that the suit was
groundless,
and that it had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He
alleged
that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant
because
of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the
criminal
investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had resolved to
file
the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity
to Submit Counter-Affidavits and Evidence,[9]
of the appeal[10]
to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to Defer/Suspend
Proceedings.[11]
On the other hand, complainant
was impleaded, because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in
filing
the estafa case, which the former knew fully well was baseless.
According
to respondent, the irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in
the
criminal investigation and complainant’s connivance therein were
discovered
only after the institution of the collection suit.cralaw:red
The Third Division of
this Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.[12]
Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002
Resolution.[13]
Report and
Recommendation
of the IBP
In her Report and Recommendation,[14]
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the case was assigned by the
IBP for investigation and report, averred that complainant and
Prosecutor
Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884 on the sole basis of
the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had filed against respondent’s
client.
In his Comment, respondent himself claimed that "the
reason x x x was x x x the irregularities of the criminal
investigation/connivance
and consequent damages."
Commissioner San Juan
maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed
purposely
to obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondent’s
client
was the defendant. There was no need to implead complainant and
Prosecutor
Salanga, since they had never participated in the business transactions
between Pan and Xu. Improper and highly questionable was the
inclusion
of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted by
respondent
on the alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the suit was filed
to harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.chanrobles virtual law library
Commissioner San Juan
held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and
complainant
in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his oath
of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
IBP
adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation for his
suspension
from the practice of law for two (2) years.
This Court’s
Ruling
We agree with the IBP’s
recommendation.cralaw:red
Lawyers are licensed
officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved
by law as a consequence.[15]
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.
Mandated
to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct
themselves
honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy,
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel."
Respondent’s actions
do not measure up to this Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the
"collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an
unregistered
business venture." It had originally been filed against Spouses
Xu,
but was later modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.chanrobles virtual law library
The Amended and Supplemental
Complaints[16]
alleged the following:
"27. The
investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga knowingly and
deliberately
refused and failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and the
Constitution
to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan due process by violating his rights
under the Rules on preliminary investigations; he also falsely made a
Certification
under oath that preliminary investigation was duly conducted and
plaintiff
[was] duly informed of the charges against him but did not answer; he
maliciously
and x x x partially ruled that there was probable cause and filed a
Criminal
Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan, knowing fully
[well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null and
void;
x x x;
"28. Said
assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed
said appeal and motion to defer for the valid grounds stated therein
deliberately
refused to correct his errors and consented to the arrest of said
plaintiff
under an invalid information and warrant of arrest.cralaw:red
"29. Defendant
Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is
baseless
connived with the latter to harass and extort money from plaintiff Chia
Hsien Pan by said criminal prosecution in the manner contrary to law,
morals
and public policy, resulting to the arrest of said plaintiff and
causing
plaintiffs grave irreparable damages."[17]
We concur with the IBP
that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the
proper
remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that the civil action was
intended to gain leverage against the estafa case. If respondent
or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution, they
should have used the proper procedural and administrative
remedies.
Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion
for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor
Salanga’s
decision to file an information for estafa.cralaw:red
In the trial court,
a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the
estafa
case was filed without basis. Moreover, he could have instituted
disbarment proceedings against complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, if
he
believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a
lawyer,
respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these
remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had no justification.chanrobles virtual law library
The lack of involvement
of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction
subject
of the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their
inclusion
in that case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as
a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the
inconvenience
suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the
legal
process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to
the parties according to law, not to harass them.[18]
Lawyers should treat
their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and
civility.
A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar,
depends upon their relations with their professional brethren.
Since
they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with
trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should
not
influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each
other.
Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior
among
lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession,[19]
but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to
disciplinary
action.cralaw:red
Furthermore, the Lawyer’s
Oath exhorts law practitioners not to "wittingly or willingly promote
or
sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same."
Respondent claims that
it was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While
lawyers
owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office
does
not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.[20]
Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just
condemnation.
Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the
best
interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that
meets the strictest principles of moral law.[21]chanrobles virtual law library
The highest reward that
can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their professional
brethren.
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by
artifice
or contrivance. It is born of sharp contests and thrives despite
conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity,
character,
brains and skill in the honorable performance of professional duty.[22]
WHEREFORE, respondent
is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years
from
the practice of law, effective immediately.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Dated October 5, 1999; rollo, pp. 1-25.
[2]
Notice of Resolution; rollo, p. 231.
[3]
Also referred to as Zongoi Xu.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-171609; rollo, p. 44.
[5]
Presided by Judge Juan C. Nabong Jr.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rollo, p. 122.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id., pp. 124-126.
[8]
Id., pp. 52-68.
[9]
Id., pp. 140-141.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Notice of Appeal with Attached Appeal Memorandum/Motion for
Reinvestigation
with Petition for Suspension of Preliminary Investigation (rollo, p.
108)
and Appeal Memorandum/Motion for Reinvestigation with Petition for
Suspension
of Preliminary Investigation (Rollo, pp. 109-115).
[11]
Rollo, pp. 120-121.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
See Resolution dated March 22, 2000; Rollo, p. 205.
[13]
See Notice of Resolution; id., p. 231.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Dated October 10, 2001, IBP.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 725, 729, August 31, 1964.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 72-81.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Id., pp. 79-80.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo, 146 Phil. 726, 731, November 26, 1970.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293, 295, August 14, 1936; Narido v.
Linsangan,
157 Phil. 87, 91, July 25, 1974.
[20]
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Canon 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
[22]
Agpalo, Legal Ethics (1989 ed.), p. 95. |