CASE DIGEST #4 Legal Ethics (Dumanlag-Vs-Atty - Intong) 2-s

CASE
LEGAL ETHICS
A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016

DATU BUDENCIO E. DUMANLAG, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG, Respondent.
FACTS:
DUMANLAG claims to be a leader of the Indigenous People of Bangcud,

Malaybalay and the President of the Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities
Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Location
Corporation. On March 12, 2010, he received a letter from Atty. Intong. He
averred that the incorporation papers of the Philippine Datus Cultural
Minorities Assistance, Inc. and the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Location
Corporation were supposed to be notarized at Atty. Intong's law office, but the
charge for notarization amounting to P10,000.00 was "very dear, very
expensive," and complainant could not afford the same. He then accused Atty.
Intong of soliciting cases for purposes of gain, which act constitutes
malpractice, citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
***
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office
as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In a Resolution dated July 19,2010, the Court required respondent to file his
comment on the complaint, which he failed to do. Consequently, in a
Resolution dated March 9, 2011, the Court issued a show cause order against
respondent reiterating compliance with Resolution dated July 19, 2010. On
September 28, 2011, the Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00 upon respondent
for his continued failure to comply with the directive to file comment.
However, respondent still failed to pay said fine, or to file his comment. Thus,
in a Resolution dated July 1, 2013, the Court dispensed with the filing of
respondent's comment, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On January 21, 2014, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) issued a
Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing directing the parties to submit their
respective mandatory conference briefs. In compliance therewith, respondent
filed his brief on March 11, 2014 claiming that the letter dated February 8,
2010 merely invited complainant "for his presence and to confront, if not, sit
and resolve any issue/s that he x x x may have against Jaime Ajoc and his wife
Encarnacion"; and that such effort at conflict resolution in the hope of avoiding
costly and cumbersome litigations is not an act of malpractice, and does not
constitute gross misconduct.
The IBP's Findings

In his Report and Recommendation dated May 27, 2014, the IBP-CBD
Investigating Commissioner Cecilia A. C. Villanueva (Commissioner Villanueva)
proposed the dismissal of the complaint for failure of the complainant to
substantiate his accusations against respondent. Commissioner Villanueva
found no force, threat or intimidation in the tenor of the letter sent by
respondent, and described the same as a "mere request" that was "carefully
worded, done in a respectful manner." He pointed out, however, the
demeanor of the complainant at the mandatory conference as that of a senior
citizen who was "very sensitive and demanding of his reputation as a leader of
cultural group. People should be careful of things to say to him lest he gets
offended or even get mad." Commissioner Villanueva almost cited complainant
in contempt when the latter threatened him and the stenographer with a
lawsuit before the Commission on Human Rights, this Court, and the United
Nations.
Be that as it may, Commissioner Villanueva recommended that respondent be

reprimanded for his disrespectful actuations before the Court and the IBP-CBD
committed as follows:
Respondent's propensity to ignore the lawful orders of the [Court] as well as
those of the IBP[-CBD] is manifest from the record. The Court issued three
resolutions requiring respondent to comment on the complaint filed by
complainant, but he simply ignored the Court's orders and did not file his
comment. Consequently, the Court resolved to dispense with the filing of the
comment but referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation so as not to deprive respondent of his right to due process.
Again, respondent was given several opportunities to express his side on the
charge during the investigation thereof by the IBP. Neither did he file a position
paper as required by the Commission on Bar Discipline. Again, he merely
ignored the Commission's directives.
On April 19, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution which
adopted and approved with modification the aforesaid Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva. In view of respondent's
propensity to ignore the lawful orders of the Court, as well as the IBP-CBD,
which was found to be unbecoming of him as officer of the court, respondent
was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Thereafter, the IBP forwarded the case to the Court as provided under Rule
139-B, Section 12 (b)27 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. INTONG CAN BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY
LIABLE FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT AND NEGLIGENCE.
RULING:
The Court sustained the findings of the IBP Board except as to the penalty.
It has been consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption
that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and
that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in
accordance with his oath. Thus, in disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant, and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary
powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. However, in this case, complainant failed to
discharge the burden of proving his accusations of gross misconduct on the
part of the Atty. Intong.
Complainant's allegation of force and compulsion accompanying the letter
dated February 8, 2010 is negated by the very words used therein. Atty. Intong
described said letter in the opening paragraph as a "letter request for
[complainant's] presence." He then went on to close the letter with "hoping
for your preferential and positive action on this matter" and "my highest
esteem." As aptly pointed out by Commissioner Villanueva in his Report and
Recommendation, the letter was "carefully worded, done in a respectful
manner." There was absolutely nothing on the face of the letter that would
justify complainant's indignation against any discourtesy or discrimination
against him. The letter was a mere invitation for complainant to attend a
settlement and pre-litigation conference, which respondent, as a lawyer, is
obligated to pursue. Under Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), "[a] lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or
settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." There was nothing
wrong, therefore, with respondent's efforts to set up a conference between
complainant and his clients.
With respect to the claim of exorbitant notarization fees, the same deserves
scant consideration in view of complainant's failure to offer corroborative
proof to support his bare allegations. While a lawyer is mandated under Canon
20 of the CPR to charge only fair and reasonable fees, and that he may be
penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for
breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR, such
violation must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof, which
was not done in this case.
Respondent cannot, however, escape accountability for his repetitive disregard

of the resolutions of the Court requiring him to file his comment to the
complaint and to pay the fine imposed upon him for his failure to do so. As
correctly pointed out by Commissioner Villanueva, the Court issued three
resolutions dated July 19, 2010, March 9, 2011, and September 28, 2011,
requiring respondent to file his comment, to show cause for his failure to file,
and to pay a fine of P1,000.00 for such failure. But all three were left
unheeded. Atty. Intong, ought to know that orders of the court are "not mere
requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and
completely." "He disregarded the oath he took when he was accepted to the
legal profession 'to obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted
legal authorities.' x x x His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called
upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in
complying with court directives as an officer of the court," pursuant to Canon
11 of the CPR, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers x x x."
It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be

disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound
judicial discretion. The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other
pleading range from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension, and, in grave
cases, disbarment. In the present case, the Court finds too harsh the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Intong be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of six months. After all, Atty. Intong did
file his mandatory conference brief before the IBP where he cited the
Resolution dated July 19, 2010 of the Court, requiring him to file his comment
to the complaint. He also attended the mandatory conference/hearing
scheduled by the IBP, although he failed to file his position paper despite the
directive to do so. Under the circumstances, and considering that this appears
to be Atty. Intong's first infraction, the Court finds it proper to reprimand him
with warning that commission of the same or similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely.
The Court reprimands respondent Atty. Winston B. Intong for refusing to obey
lawful orders of the Court and the IBP, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act or offense shall be dealt with more severely.
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Case Law / Doctrines / Rules Cited:
Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), "[a] lawyer
shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit
of a fair settlement."
Canon 11 of the CPR, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers x x x.
Case of Andres v. Nambi, where respondent therein was found to have ignored
the Court's resolution directing him to file comment, and to have failed to
attend the mandatory conference before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
despite notice, as well as to file his position paper. Since it was also his first
infraction, respondent therein was merely reprimanded by the Court, as in this
case.

CASE DIGEST #4 Legal Ethics (Dumanlag-Vs-Atty - Intong) 2-s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST #4 Legal Ethics (Dumanlag-Vs-Atty - Intong) 2-s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE

A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016

DUMANLAG claims to be a leader of the Indigenous People of Bangcud,

The IBP's Findings

Be that as it may, Commissioner Villanueva recommended that respondent be

Respondent cannot, however, escape accountability for his repetitive disregard

It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be

Case Law / Doctrines / Rules Cited:

You might also like