Garcia Vs Lopez
Garcia Vs Lopez
Facts:
Petitioner Wilfredo Garcia was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC
Case No. 05-M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan,
Branch 15. Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m.
tract of land. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision
was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order dated 21
February 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of
registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file
an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court.
On 19 September 2002, Respondent Beniamino Lopez filed his entry of appearance and motion
for postponement because he claimed to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento. Garcia had
not withdrawn from the case therefore he was surprised by what Lopez did. On 24 September
2002, Garcia filed a complaint and charged Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the
bar and officer of the court, misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that the
respondent be suspended or disbarred.
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarviña
(Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarviña), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson,
Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her
relationship with Victor). Garcia presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarviña and Alfredo Ku
wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of Lopez and that they recognized
Garcia as their only counsel of record.
Lopez claimed that he was merely representing the heirs Zenaida and Wilson Ku since they
availed of his services. They allegedly did not have a lawyer a day before a scheduled hearing
therefore Lopez executed an entry of appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted
that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not
deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of
misrepresenting himself to the court.
Issue:
Whether or not Lopez violated rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of
Sarmiento which was highly unfair to Garcia who had worked on the case from the very
beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such.
Canon 8 provides that A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Rule 8.02
states that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.