THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000]
MANUEL N.
CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D.
BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents.
D E C I S IO N
VITUG, J.: JVITUG
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a
violation of the Code of Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof,
viz:
"A lawyer
should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend
to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to
advise him as to law." barth
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint
against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices,
namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V.
Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos. Complainant, the hired counsel of some
expelled students from the AMA Computer College ("AMACC"), in an
action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for
Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then counsel for the defendants,
procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in
the aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all
kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and
to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against
it. Complainant averred that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any
member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from
the practice of law.
In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan
acknowledged that not one of his co-respondents had taken part in the
negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission
Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time
with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements, he
claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were
executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative
case involving nine students of AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the
recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students, namely, Ian
Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon,
Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A. Santiago, Michael Ejercito,
and Cleo B. Villareiz,, were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE,
who apparently had caused to be published some objectionable features or
articles in the paper. The 3-member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was
immediately convened, and after a series of hearings, it found the students
guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student
publication funds. The body recommended the penalty of expulsion against the
erring students. Jksm
The denial of the appeal made by the
students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC President, gave rise to the
commencement of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City. While the civil
case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were
separately executed by and/or in behalf of some of the expelled students, to
wit: Letter of Apology, dated 27 May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by
his mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with the AMACC
President; letter of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. Veronica B. De Leon
for her daughter Melyda B. De Leon and Re-Admission Agreement of 09 May 1997
with the AMACC President; letter of apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven,
assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC
President; letter of apology, dated 22 September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and
Re-Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997 with the AMACC President; and letter
of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito, assisted by his
parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23 January 1997 with the AMACC
President.
Following the execution of the letters of
apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was
filed with the trial court where the civil case was pending by Attorney Regina
D. Balmores of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for defendant AMACC. A
copy of the manifestation was furnished complainant. In his Resolution, dated
14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court thereupon
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP") passed Resolution No.
XIII-99-163, thus:
"RESOLVED to
ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex 'A,' and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules, with an amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from
the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and
DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents for they did not take part
in the negotiation of the case." Chief
It would appear that when the individual
letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized, complainant was
by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case.
Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the
students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded,
nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel
of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent, whether by
design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.
Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a
member of the Bar.
The allegation that the context of the
Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the administrative aspect of the
controversy is belied by the Manifestation[1] which, among other things, explicitly contained the
following stipulation; viz:
"1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the
complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their parents/guardian already executed
a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President, AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V
acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE MANUAL FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all civil, criminal
and administrative proceedings which they may have against the AMACC arising
from their previous dismissal. Esm
"x
x x......x x x......x
x x
"3.
Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case
No. Q-97-30549 will by filed them."
The Court can only thus concur with the IBP
Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their findings;
nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would appear to be somewhat
too harsh a penalty given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is
ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS
effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. The case against the
other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
Let a copy of this decision be entered in
the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member of the Bar,
and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.6/27/00 3:07 PM