Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGEST #4 Legal Ethics (Dumanlag-Vs-Atty - Intong) 2-s
CASE DIGEST #4 Legal Ethics (Dumanlag-Vs-Atty - Intong) 2-s
LEGAL ETHICS
FACTS:
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.
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.
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.