Espina vs.

Chavez
(AC 7250)

The Facts:

Atty. Ricardo filed a complaint for ejectment against Remedios Engiuo before the MTC of Carmen, Agusan del Norte, who was
represented by Atty. Jesus G. Chavez, then employed by the Public Attorneys Office. In the course of the trial, Ricardo wrote the
Department of Justice complaining about Jesus’ conduct during the pendency of the case, such as his writing a transmittal letter to
the Provincial Prosecutor recommending the filing of a case for falsification of private document and use of falsified document against
Ricardo, his wife and his parents. The case was eventually dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor. The DOJ on the other hand
transmitted Ricardo’s letter to the Chief of PAO, who required Jesus to submit his Comment and for Ricardo to submit his rebuttal. In
his rebuttal, Ricardo wrote “Baka kulangpo ng indoctrination itong si Atty. Chavez sa concept ng Torrens system, i-suspend nyo po
muna siya not for the purpose of penalizing him but for him to be given time to take continuing legal education on Torrens system. “.
The Chief PAO dismissed his complaint. Ricardo hence filed his Complaint for Disbarment against Jesus. The IBP Commissioner ruled
that Jesus’ act of transmitting the complaint for falsification against Ricardo and his parents in connection with the ejectment case
was not an unfair and dishonest means employed by Atty. Chavez., since the complaint contained conflicting averments thus she
concluded that Atty. Chavez was honestly mistaken when he construed the contradictory allegations in the complaint for ejectment
as criminal falsification under the Revised Penal Code. He noted that lawyers are not liable for honest mistakes. He dismissed the
complaint given the dearth of competent evidence on record to substantiate Atty. Espina’s allegation that the transmission of the
complaint for falsification was intended to gain an advantage in the civil complaint for ejectment. The IBP Board affirmed the findings
and recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner.

The Issue:

1. Whether or not Atty. Chavez should be held administratively liable for endorsing the falsification complaint.

2. Whether or not Atty. Chavez intended to obtain improper advantage in a case or proceeding.

The Ruling:

Canon 1: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.

Rule 19.01: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improperadvantage in any case or proceeding.

(Underscoring supplied.)

Atty. Espina contends that Atty. Chavez violated the above-quoted provisions when he indispensably participated in the filing of the falsification
complaint against him, his wife and his parents. The falsification case was filed, according to Atty. Espina, solely for the purpose of gaining an
improper advantage and leverage in the ejectment case.16

Atty. Espina further argues that Atty. Chavez participated in the filing of the baseless criminal complaint by (i) goading Enguio to file the criminal
complaint and (ii) ensuring that the criminal complaint was acted upon by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor by sending the transmittal letter
to the said office under Atty. Chavez's signature.17

We find Atty. Espina's position unmeritorious and without basis.

What Rule 19.01 prohibits is the filing or the threat of filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals or clearly groundless actions for the purpose
of gaining improper advantage in any case or proceeding.18

Two elements are indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated this rule: (i) the filing or threat of filing a patently frivolous and
meritless action or appeal and (ii) the filing or threat of filing the action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Our jurisprudence is replete with cases on these points.

In Pena v. Atty. Aparicio,19 the lawyer sent a demand letter to his client's employer which contained threats of filing criminal charges for tax
evasion, falsification of documents and cancellation of business license if the separation pay allegedly due to his client was not paid. The lawyer
drafted the demand letter in response to the notice to return to work sent by the employer.

We held that Atty. Aparicio did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rules prohibit. The threat to file the cases against the employer was designed to
secure leverage to compel the latter to give in to Atty. Aparicio's demands. The letter in this case contained more than just a simple demand to pay.
It contained threat to file retaliatory charges against the complainant which had nothing to do with the claim for separation pay. The letter was
obviously designed to secure leverage to compel the employer to yield to the client'sclaims.20

In Ong v. Atty. Unto,21 we reprimanded a lawyer when he sent a demand letter which also contained the threat of various charges against
the complainant if the latter failed to comply with the lawyer's demands. The lawyer, in fact, made good his promise when the complainant did not
heed his warning. The lawyer filed an array of criminal and administrative charges against the complainant,which charges were irrelevant to his
client's claim.

We held in Ong that:

It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various charges
against the latter. When the complainant did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and
administrative cases against the complainant. We find the respondent's action to be malicious as the cases he instituted against
the complainant did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client.22

In Atty. Briones v. Atty. Gimenez,23 Atty. Briones charged Atty. Gimenez (a special administrator of an estate) for violating Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In this case, the Atty. Gimenez filed a criminal complaint 24 against Atty. Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying an
order of the trial court in an estate settlement proceeding, directing him (Atty. Briones) to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs.

We noted that before Atty. Gimenez assisted the heirs in filing the criminal complaint, he sent demand letters to Atty. Briones to comply with the
order to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs. When Atty. Briones did not reply to the demand letters, Atty. Gimenez filed the criminal
complaint on behalf of his clients against Atty. Briones for refusing to obey the lawful order of the court.25

We held that Atty. Gimenez should have first filed the proper motion with the Regional Trial Court for execution of the order instead of
immediately filing the criminal complaint. We concluded that fair play demands that Atty. Gimenez should have filed the proper motion with the
Regional Trial Court to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients, instead of prematurely filing criminal charges
against Atty. Briones.26

It can be gleamed from the above-cited cases that Rule 19.01 is violated only when the criminal complaint filed or threatened to be filed is patently
frivolous, meritless and clearly groundless and is aimed solely at gaining the sole purpose of improper advantage.

In Pena v. Atty. Aparicio, the demand letter was explicit and blatant in its threat of filing several actions (which included tax evasion, a matter
totally unrelated to the pending labor case) if the employer failed to accede to the demand for payment of separation pay allegedly due to the
employee. It was clearly and obviously done to compel the employer to grant the demand for separation pay.

Similarly, in Ong v. Atty. Unto, the letter contained threats of criminal prosecution if the complainant did not accede to the lawyer's demand. The
lawyer subsequently filed totally unrelated and irrelevant criminal and administrative cases against the complainant when the latter failed to
comply with the demand letter. Without doubt, these cases were filed to force the complainant to give in to the lawyer's demands.

Finally, in Atty. Briones v. Atty. Gimenez, the criminal complaint was filed after the complainant did not comply with the demand letter. There was
also an available remedy in the civil action which could have given effect to Atty. Gimenez's demand without having to file the criminal complaint.

The facts of the present case differed from the above-cited cases. We note that Atty. Espina did not only fail to substantiate his allegation that
Atty. Chavez masterminded the filing of the criminal complaint for falsification; he also failed to show that the criminal complaint was patently
frivolous, meritless and groundless, and that it was filed to gain improper advantage in favor of his client.

First, the fact that Atty. Chavez endorsed the criminal complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor was, in itself, not contrary to Rule 19.01.

We point out that Atty. Chavez was then a PAO lawyer. In this capacity, he had the duty to assist clients who could not afford the services of a
private lawyer. His assessment on the merit of the criminal complaint might have been erroneous but the act of endorsing the affidavit-complaint
to the Provincial Prosecutor did not per se violate Rule 19.01.

Moreover, the affidavit-complaint for Falsification was signed and executed by Enguio and not by Atty. Chavez. Atty. Chavez merely transmitted the
affidavit-complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor for the latter's consideration. We cannot conclude, solely given these facts and Atty. Espina's bare
assertions, that Enguio was goaded into filing the criminal complaint.

Second, the criminal complaint was not patently frivolous and groundless. It was not unreasonable for Atty. Chavez to conclude (albeit incorrectly
according to the assessment of the Provincial Prosecutor) that there was a case for violation of Article 172 of the RPC.

Article 172 in relation to paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the RPC penalizes the making of untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The basis of
Enguio's affidavit-complaint was the contrary statements in the ejectment complaint on when Atty. Espina's parents acquired knowledge of
Enguio's alleged illegal possession of the property.
The body of the ejectment complaint alleged that the plaintiffs discovered Enguio's illegal possession in November 2003. On the other hand, the
letter attached to the complaint explicitly indicated that Enguio has been notified as early as 1997 that her possession and occupation of the land
was illegal. This explains Enguio's allegation in her affidavit-complaint that "in order to fashion a case for Ejectment, respondent made an
untruthful statement in the narration of facts."

As the IBP Commissioner correctly observed, the criminal complaint was not exactly unfounded or wanting in basis. That it was later dismissed by
the Provincial Prosecutor for lack of probable cause is of no consequence. We cannot expect and require Atty. Chavez (or any lawyer for that
matter) to be infallible in his judgment on the merit of every criminal charge he endorses to the prosecutor. It is only required that the complaint is
not patently frivolous and filed solely to ensure improper advantage.

It is also unwise to characterize every criminal complaint that arose from or is connected with a separate case or proceeding to be within the
coverage of Rule 19.01. The better policy is to balance the prohibition under Rule 19.01 with the equally important right of the State to prosecute
criminal offenses. We stress that the key test is whether the criminal complaint is patently meritless and clearly filed to gain improper advantage.

Unless the criminal complaint is patently frivolous and obviously meant to secure an improper advantage, a lawyer who files such criminal
complaint should not be automatically deemed to have violated Rule 19.01. Otherwise, lawyers who have a valid cause for filing a criminal action
may be compelled not to proceed because of fear of administrative sanctions.

Finally, unlike in the cases cited above, there is no clear and concrete proof that the falsification complaint was filed to ensure improper advantage
to Enguio.

Other than the fact that the falsification complaint arose from the narration of facts in the ejectment complaint, Atty. Espina failed to show that the
falsification complaint was meant to ensure improper advantage to Enguio. Atty. Espina merely made this conclusion by inference but his basic
premises were not supported by evidence. We cannot presume that Enguio gained or stood to gain improper advantage to the detriment of Atty.
Espina's parents by the mere filing of the falsification complaint. After all, both the ejectment and falsification complaints were eventually
dismissed.

As a final point, we note with concern the excessive antagonism between Atty. Espina and Atty. Chavez. It appears that this case is no longer about
the alleged violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility but a protracted and bitter fight between brothers in the legal profession. Both
claim that the other party is arrogant and ignorant of the law. The pleadings contained serious attacks on the professional competence and
personal integrity of one another. These are acts that this Court should not allow to pass without comments.