Legal Ethics Digest - Macapagal vs. Young
Legal Ethics Digest - Macapagal vs. Young
PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 195,
PARAÑAQUE CITY, Complainant, vs. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, Respondent
A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019
(Second Division)
FACTS: Presiding Judge Macapagal in a letter-complaint, alleged that she received a letter from
respondent Atty. Walter Young, threatening her that an administrative and a criminal complaint for
„knowingly rendering an unjust judgment‰ would be filed against her if the writ of possession/writ of
demolition would be implemented in connection to an expropriation case filed by the City of Parañaque
against Magdiwang Realty Corporation and Fil-Homes Realty Development Corporation. It appeared
that Judge Macapagal granted the motion for demolition for before the case was unloaded to her, the
writ of possession had already been issued. Judge Macapagal alleged that Atty. Young committed an
act unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in sending the
subject threatening letter. Atty, Young alleged that he was courteous in the subject letter; the subject
letter was worded in such a manner that not a hint of scandalous, offensive or menacing tenor was
made; he was so choosy with his words that almost every paragraph was prefaced with a reverential
phrase or tone; the objective of the subject letter was to serve a cautionary notice unto Judge
Macapagal so that she „could be thwarted and/or rescued from treading on unlawful ground; assuming
without admitting that he threatened Judge Macapagal, the threat must be unlawful in order to be
considered as a ground for an administrative complaint; but the alleged „threat,‰ if it may be called
as such, is more of a cautionary notice; finally, pursuant to Canons 18 and 19, a lawyer is duty-bound
to serve his clients with diligence and zeal.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Young violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on the ground
of committing an act which is unbecoming of a lawyer.
HELD: Yes, Atty. Young violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
“1 CANON 11 -A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.”
There is no question that Atty. Young did threaten to file administrative and criminal complaints against
Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was implemented.
While Atty. Young alleged in his Comment that he had no intention to threaten Judge Macapagal in
sending the subject letter, he also stated that she may be “stubbornly pursuing” the demolition
operations “because of her desire to please and gratify” the Mayor of Parañaque City. These statements,
in the mind of the Court, indubitably demonstrate how Atty. Young had failed to observe the respect
due to the Courts and to judicial officers.
FACTS: Complainant Wilma Zamora, representing the PJH Lending Corporation, is the plaintiff in an
action for forcible entry filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City. The MeTC
subsequently rendered a decision in favor of the PJH Lending Corporation. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212 likewise affirmed the MeTC decision on appeal, and the case
was eventually remanded to the MeTC for proper disposition. PJH Lending Corporation filed a motion
for execution which the MeTC of Mandaluyong City, through Assisting Judge John Benedict Medina,
granted. Respondent Atty. Makilito Mahinay, on behalf of his clients, filed a motion for reconsideration.
where he pertinently alleged in part:
96