SECOND DIVISION
MERCEDES
NAVA,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5442
January 26, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
BENJAMIN P.
SORONGON,
Respondent. R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Mercedes Nava has charged
Atty. Benjamin P. Sorongon with dishonest conduct and representing
clients
with conflicting interest, in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
In a Letter[1]
dated June 23, 1999, she alleged that the respondent had been her
counsel
for many years and had represented her in various cases. The respondent
informed her of his intention to withdraw as her counsel in two of her
cases: Civil Case No. 21417[2]
and CA-G.R. SP No. 37002.[3]
In his Letter dated November 27, 1996, the respondent explained, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Due to my recent stroke
which resulted in the paralysis of my right body, I was advised by my
doctor
not to handle civil cases which are complicated in nature and which
entailed
paper works because it will aggravate my illness.[4]
As a postscript, the
respondent proposed to be retained as the complainant’s counsel in
Criminal
Cases Nos. 44181[5]
and 79688,[6]
considering that the said cases did not involve too much paper work.
Thus,
on December 4, 1996, Atty. Sorongon filed his withdrawal as counsel in
Civil Case No. 21417 and in Criminal Cases Nos. 76986-89. The trial
court
granted the same.[7]
The complainant further
alleged that albeit the fact that she continuously paid for the
services
of the respondent, the latter represented other clients with hostile
interests
and filed cases against her on their behalf.[8]
It appears that the
complainant had issued several checks which were dishonored on the
ground
that her account with the bank had been closed, and that the respondent
assisted one Francisco Atas in collecting the amounts due thereon. The
respondent sent a Demand Letter[9]
dated September 18, 1998 to the complainant. Upon her failure to settle
the obligation, the respondent himself assisted Atas in filing a formal
complaint against the complainant before the city prosecutor’s office
for
seventeen (17) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.[10]
The complainant thereafter
sent a Letter to the respondent dated November 23, 1998,[11]
expressing her disbelief at the cases he filed against her and
reminding
the respondent of his ethical and moral responsibility as her lawyer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainant prayed
that an investigation be conducted regarding "this unfortunate
actuation
and deplorable behavior as well as the respondent’s double standard
attitude."[12]
In his Comment, the
respondent admitted that the complainant was one of his clients and
that
it was one of his friends, Tubin Nava, who asked him to represent her.
Initially, he handled only one case for the complainant, but later
acceded
to represent her in other cases, with or without attorney’s fees. The
respondent
further made a litany of the progress and successes on the cases he
handled
for the complainant, including lack of compensation for services
rendered.
The respondent also
admitted having represented Francisco Atas in the case against the
complainant,
but he asserted that he had not violated any of the canons of
professional
ethics. He insisted that his attorney-client relationship with the
complainant
had ceased as early as 1996, and assuming that it had not been
terminated,
the "supervening event" incapacitated him from further performing his
obligations.
He averred that no conflict of interest existed, since his retainer
with
the complainant had been limited to only two estafa cases and that his
client Atas did not know anything that would prejudice the complainant.
The fact that the complaint was filed only after he handled the cases
for
Atas against the complainant shows that the instant case was filed in
retaliation,
to force the respondent into withdrawing as Atas’ counsel.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her reply, the complainant
pointed out that the respondent admitted being the complainant’s
counsel
from the years 1993 to 1995; and that he did not withdraw as her
counsel
in the other cases before the respondent filed the complaint for estafa
in behalf of Atas. The complainant averred that even assuming that the
respondent had withdrawn as her counsel, he should still not have
accepted
cases against her as to do so would be to violate Rule 15.03 of the
Code
of Professional Responsibility.[14]
The respondent maintained
his position that he did not violate any rule or canon, and reiterated
his defense that the cases he had handled in behalf of the complainant
had nothing to do whatsoever with the case filed by him in behalf of
Atas.
He insisted that their attorney-client relationship had long been
terminated.
The respondent also asserted that as an officer of the court, it is his
solemn duty and obligation to bring to justice anyone committing a
crime.[15]
The respondent also
claimed that the complainant and her counsel Atty. Althea Tugado
announced
in open court, during the hearing of Criminal Cases Nos. 51472-73 and
52266-69
that a disbarment case had been filed against him. Because of this, the
complainant and her counsel are guilty of violating the confidential
nature
of this case.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Report and Recommendation
dated May 26, 2003, Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found that the
certifications
submitted by the complainant to prove that the respondent was still her
counsel on record as of June 1999 in Criminal Case No. 44181,[17]
Criminal Case No. 79688[18]
and Civil Case No. 42707[19]
belied the respondent’s assertion that his attorney-client relationship
with the complainant had long been terminated. According to the
Commissioner,
at the time the respondent accepted his engagement as Francisco Atas’
counsel
and filed a case against the complainant, he was still acting as
counsel
for the latter in a number of cases. It was recommended that the
respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years
with
a warning that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.[20]
Thereafter, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline issued
Resolution
No. XV-2003-354 dated June 21, 2003 finding that the respondent
transgressed
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules,
with modification as to penalty to conform to the evidence, and
considering
the respondent’s clear violation of the prohibition against
representing
conflicting interests, Atty. Benjamin P. Sorongon is hereby SUSPENDED
from
the practice of law for one (1) year with a Warning that a similar
offense
in the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
When the respondent
learned of the said IBP resolution, he promptly moved for the
reconsideration[21]
of the same, alleging that no formal investigation had been conducted.
He prayed that Resolution No. XV-2003-354 be set aside, and that a new
one ordering the reception of evidence of the parties be entered, and
that
the case thereafter be dismissed.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution dated
September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors denied the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration, since pursuant to Section 12 (b) of Rule
139-B
of the Rules of Court, the Board has no more jurisdiction to consider
and
resolve a matter already endorsed to the Supreme Court.cralaw:red
A perusal of the records
will show that indeed, no formal investigation was conducted by the IBP
in the instant case before it issued the questioned resolution.cralaw:red
In complaints for disbarment,
a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement.[23]
The Court may dispense with the normal referral to the Integrated Bar
of
the Philippines if the records are complete and the question raised is
simple.[24]
Similarly, if no further factual determination is necessary, the Court
may decide the case on the basis of the extensive pleadings on record.[25]
As we held in Delos
Santos v. Robiso:[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complaints against lawyers
for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset,
the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it
outrightly
dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that
further
inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved
by
merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the
IBP
for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are
accorded
an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be
conducted
when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. …[27]
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
for further proceedings. It is DIRECTED to act on this referral with
dispatch.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-9.
[2]
Entitled Melanie Batisla-ong v. Mercedes Nava for accounting, damages
and
injunction with prayer for issuance of preliminary
injunction/restraining
order before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Entitled Mercedes Nava v. Melanie Batisla-ong, et al., pending before
the
Court of Appeals.
[4]
Annex "H", Rollo, p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People of the Philippines v. Melanie Batisla-ong, for estafa pending
before
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 32, where Ms. Nava is
the
complainant;
[6]
People of the Philippines v. Melanie Batisla-ong, for violation of
Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Iloilo
City, Branch 4, where Ms. Nava is also the complainant;
[7]
Rollo, pp. 59, 63.
[8]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 110.
[10]
Id. at 69.
[11]
Id. at 68.
[12]
Id. at 8.
[13]
Id. at 161.
[14]
Id. at 248-250.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 261-264.
[16]
Id. at 262-263.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Annex "A" of the Complaint.
[18]
Annex "B" of the Complaint.
[19]
Annex "D" of the Complaint.
[20]
Report and Recommendation, p. 10.
[21]
Dated August 11, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Motion for Reconsideration, p. 6.
[23]
Delos Santos v. Robiso, 372 SCRA 276 (2001).
[24]
Angeles v. Uy, Jr., 330 SCRA 6 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
See Manubay v. Garcia, 330 SCRA 236 (2000).
[26]
Supra, citing Cottam v. Laysa, 326 SCRA 614 (2000) and Baldomar v.
Paras,
348 SCRA 212 (2000).
[27]
Id. at 280. |