Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest 6
Digest 6
]
PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE I (PANELCO I)
represented by its GM, ROLANDO O. REINOSO, petitioner, vs. ATTY.
JUAN AYAR MONTEMAYOR, respondent.
administrative complaint filed by Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I
(PANELCO I) charging Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor with negligence in
handling the cases assigned to him which caused unwarranted financial
losses to the complainant (PhP16,000,000)
while acting as counsel for the cooperative, respondent was negligent in
handling its cases:
1. "Rural Power Corporation vs. PANELCO I."--dismissed by
CA due to failure to serve and file the required number of copies
within the time provided by the Rules of Court.
2. Decision of the trial court became final and executory, and the
judgment award in the amount ofP2,179,209.18was paid by the
complainant
3. "Engineering and Construction Corporation of Asia (ECCOASIA) vs. PANELCO I-dismissed by CA due to the failure to serve
and file the required Appellant's Brief despite the lapse of the two
extensions of time granted. --award was paid to the
PlaintiffP13,836,676.25
4. when complainant confronted Atty. Montemayor on the matter,
and he uttered "napabayaan ko itong kaso . . . ano ang gagawin
natin";
5. As a consequence of the negligence complainant was forced to
settle with the Plaintiffs without the benefit of an approved timetable, and is presently in a dire financial situation, which has
caused difficulty in meeting its monthly power bills with
NAPOCOR
Answer to complaint:
-admitted that he received money
-claims that he gave the P500,000.00 to Undersecretary Lacuna, with
IBP Commissioner-disbarred
the University's conformity, for a favorable MMDA endorsement to the
IBP-BG suspended indefinitely
Mayor of Manila.
-Lacuna later said that he could not provide the endorsement because,
issue: WON respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in
as it turned out, the MMDA had previously given such endorsement of the
mishandling complainant's cases on appeal, which eventually led to their University's earlier application and the Mayor of Manila did not act on
dismissal, to the prejudice of the complainant.
that endorsement.
SC:
IBP Commissioner: disbarment
CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH IBP-BG- indefinite suspension from the practice of law and ordering
ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Mijares to return the money
(violated 12, 12.03, 17, 18, 18.03)
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00
respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence required of that his client entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the
every member of the Bar in relation to his client.
titling of a property that it claimed.
The records of this case clearly show that respondent failed to live up to
his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession.
There is no doubt that it was part of respondent's obligation to
complainant, as the latter's counsel of record in the civil cases, to
prosecute with assiduousness said cases on appeal in order to safeguard
complainant's rights, but it was respondent's negligence or omission
which has caused damage to such interests.
SC:
DISBARMENT
GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule 15.05,
Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04
directed all the documents
lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his
The case of Atty. Montemayor is however different. He is guilty not only client such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property
of his unjustified failure to file the appellant's brief of his client not only his client may have entrusted to him.
once but twice.
must return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand,
Court notes with dismay the huge losses suffered by complainant
otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have misappropriated the same
PANELCO I in the total amount of PhP16,000,000
in violation of the trust reposed on him. ( gross violation of professional
ethics)
emonstrated an utter lack of regard for the very serious charges against
him and a gross disrespect for the Court when he failed to file his
falsely claimed having obtained the MMDA approval of the application;
comment after being required to file
and that he nonetheless refused to return the money despite repeated
demands.
DISBARRED
Presented no evidence to substantiate his claims
(alleged:)
Urdaneta City Mayor entered into five contracts for the preliminary
design, construction and management of a four-storey twin cinema
commercial center and hotel involving a massive expenditure of public
funds amounting to P250 million funded by a loan from PNB
-For minimal work, the contractor was allegedly paid P95 million
-claimed that all the contracts are void because the object is outside the
upon the appeal of Tashi Garments, Inc. posting a P500,000.00 cash
commerce of men since the object is a piece of land belonging to the
bond NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and dismissed the complaint public domain and which remains devoted to a public purpose as a public
for lack of merit
elementary school
-contracts, from the feasibility study to management and lease of the
counsel had not filed a motion for reconsideration despite the money future building, are also void because they were all awarded solely to the
Goco family.
tendered to him to facilitate the filing of MR
seek explanation for her failure to file the said MR, the latter refused (answer)
to accommodate her and, instead, directed her sister, Emma Montevilla, -claimed that the contracts are valid. properly executed by then Mayor
-no legal capacity to sue and that the complaint states no cause of action.
to hand her back the records of the case including three (3) copies of a
signed and postdated Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel.
Lazaro Law Firm entered its appearance as counsel for Urdaneta City and
Thus, they filed Complaint for Disbarment for the misconduct of
filed an Omnibus Motion (among its prayer is drop Urdaneta City as
Atty. Montevilla which prejudiced their interest as clients.
defendant and be joined as plaintiff)
**denied the allegation
RTC-granted the prayer to drop the city as defendant and admitted its
1. no contingency fee agreement;
complaint for consolidation with Del Castillo's complaint, and directed the
2. denied that she received attorney's fees per appearance.
defendants to answer the city's complaint.
3. even had to spend her own money for the preparation and filing of
their complaint
RTC denied reconsideration. Resp Capalad was dropped as defendant, and
4. what prompted her to withdraw as counsel was the incident that
his complaint was consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo and
transpired after the complainant learned that through her painstaking
Urdaneta City
efforts they won the case and were able to obtain an award of
P3,396,694.84.
Aggrieved party filed a petition for certiorari before the CA dismissed
IBP-BG: DISMISSED the disbarment case but however ADMONISHED on the grounds of:
(1) defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping (Goco
for her failure to observe the required diligence.
had no proof of his authority to sign the verification and certification of
(1) was negligent in handling the labor case of the complainant; and
non-forum shopping)
(2) made a proper withdrawal as counsel
(2) failure of the petitioners to submit certified true copies of the RTC's
assailed orders as mere photocopies were submitted, and
SC:
(3) lack of written explanation why service of the petition to adverse
parties was not personal.
fell short of her duty of meticulously ensuring that all pleadings are
properly filed and served on the concerned parties.
Hence, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
remiss when she passed on the filing of her Motion to Withdraw as
claimed-violation:
Counsel to her client.
(a) entertaining the taxpayers' suits;
Because of this negligence, the Motion to Withdraw was belatedly filed, (b) allowing a private law firm to represent Urdaneta City;
and the eventual Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC decision was (c) allowing respondents Capalad and Urdaneta City to switch from
resultantly filed out of time, thus causing the dismissal of complainant's being defendants to becoming complainants; and
(d) allowing Capalad's change of attorneys
case
the negligence of the respondent is not so gross as to justify removal from lazaro firm counters: The city has no legal officer and both City
Prosecutor and Provincial Legal Officer are busy.
the legal profession.
Disbarment is DENIED for lack of merit. REPRIMANDED and
WARNED
3. Sahagun represents petitioners who claim that the contracts are valid.
On the other hand, Capalad filed a complaint for annulment of the
contracts. Certainly, Atty. Sahagun cannot represent totally conflicting
interests. Thus, we should expunge all pleadings filed by Atty. Sahagun in Respondent, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank,
behalf of Capalad.
filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses stating that:
That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff
and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain
****offensive language used by Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B.
Escalante in their pleadings
-complainant finds the statement totally malicious, viscous and bereft of
any factual or legal basis
"court of technicalities" accused CA of protecting "an incompetent
- aided and abetted the infliction of damages upon his wife and "her
judge"
children" who were thus deprived of the use of the mortgaged property.
Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and Antonio B. Escalante a fine of P2,000 48
each payable to this Court within ten days
***respondent answered:
(1) there was "nothing abusive, offensive or otherwise improper" in the
way he used the word "blackmail" to characterize the suit against his
clients; and
(2) when a lawyer files a responsive pleading, he is not in any way aiding
or abetting the infliction of damages upon the other party.
(3) matters stated in the Answer he filed before the BSP were privileged
(1) GRANT the petition; (2) SET ASIDE the Resolutions (3) DENY the
entry of appearance of the Lazaro Law Firm(4) ORDER the City
Prosecutor to represent Urdaneta City (5) AFFIRM the RTC in admitting
the complaint of Capalad;(6) PROHIBIT Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun from
IBP Commissioner ordered the SUSPENSION of respondent for 30days
representing Capalad and EXPUNGE all pleadings that he filed
by using words that were "unnecessary and irrelevant to the case",
respondent went "overboard and crossed the line" of professional conduct.
IBP-BG dismissed the case for lack of merit.
Complainant challenges the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution
SC:
guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his
pleadings. (canon 8, 8.1, 11, 11.3)
Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of
a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which
he is charged.
respondent's argument that the matters stated in the Answer he filed before
the BSP were privileged, it suffices to stress that lawyers, though they are
allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of
the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not
trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such
remark or comment.
In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be
in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must,
however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of
the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of
the trial
respondent is guilty of using infelicitous language,
petition is partly GRANTED guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for using
intemperate language. He is FINED P2,000 with a stern WARNING
(c) When his inability to work with cocounsel will not promote the best interest of
the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry
out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay
the fees for the services or fails to comply
with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed
to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall,
subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter,
including all information necessary for the proper handling of
the matter.