SECOND DIVISION
[A.C.
No. 5043. September 19, 2001]
ABEDIN L. OSOP, complainant, vs. ATTY. V. EMMANUEL C. FONTANILLA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
In a verified complaint filed on
April 15, 1999, complainant Abedin Limpao Osop charged Atty. V. Emmanuel C.
Fontanilla with Grave Misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 6381
entitled, “Abedin Limpao Osop vs. Macapado Muslim and Virgilio Ramos” for
Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining
Order, Damages and Attorney’s Fees with the Regional Trial Court at General
Santos City, Branch 22.
On July 24, 1998, the respondent,
Atty. Fontanilla, suggested that Abedin Limpao Osop write a letter of
reconsideration to Macapado Muslim, Chancellor of the Mindanao State University
at General Santos City, one of the defendants in the case. Atty. Fontanilla represented on record that
Mr. Muslim was his classmate/contemporary at MSU and that he could possibly
convince the latter to reconsider.
During the hearing held on July
27, 1998, Atty. Fontanilla once again urged Mr. Osop to write the letter of
reconsideration so that the negotiations could begin. At first Atty. Virgilio Alconera (counsel for the complainant)
opposed the suggestion but eventually gave in by saying that if the court would
direct his client to write a letter, he (Mr. Osop) would do so. On this basis, the court issued an order
suggesting that Mr. Osop write the chancellor a letter of reconsideration
without prejudice to the continuation of the hearing on the petition for a
temporary restraining order should the latter be not receptive to the
request. Based on the order of the
court, and upon advise of his counsel, Mr. Osop wrote the letter of
reconsideration on the same day. He furnished
a copy to Atty. Fontanilla on even date and to the office of the chancellor the
following day, July 28, 1998.
On July 30, 1998, Atty. Fontanilla
filed a Manifestation praying for the dismissal of the case without prejudice
in view of the Indorsement by defendant Macapado Muslim of Mr. Osop’s letter to
the University President for appropriate disposition, and in conjunction with
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy.
The following day, Atty.
Fontanilla manifested in court that he was not able to convince Mr. Muslim to
agree to a settlement and apologized to the complainant and his counsel.
On August 6, 1998, respondent
Atty. Fontanilla filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the grounds of,
among others, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and forum-shopping on
account of the letter of reconsideration written and filed by Mr. Osop.
Abedin Limpao Osop claimed, among
other things, that in filing the “Manifestation” and “Motion to Dismiss,” Atty.
Fontanilla had breached the trust and faith that he and his counsel have
reposed in the latter; that the act of Atty. Fontanilla in soliciting the
letter of reconsideration and using the same letter against him was a betrayal
of trust; that it was Atty. Fontanilla who caused the creation of the
administrative forum by soliciting the letter of reconsideration; that Atty.
Fontanilla had committed a gross malpractice of law that constituted the
administrative offense of grave misconduct.
In response, Atty. V. Emmanuel C.
Fontanilla admitted that he made the suggestion to Mr. Osop and his counsel in
good faith and in order for the parties to settle their dispute amicably; and
that Mr. Osop was ably represented by counsel at the time the suggestion to
write the letter of reconsideration was made.
He denied misleading or misinforming the court or deceiving Mr. Osop and
Atty. Alconera when he filed the manifestation and the motion to dismiss; that
he raised the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies even before the
court approved his suggestion of a letter of reconsideration; and that he was
merely complying with his duties as an officer of the court by bringing to the
court’s attention the fact that the issues raised by the complainant were being
treated in two separate fora. He
emphasized that the complainant suffered no damage because the case was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and not due to the writing of the letter of
reconsideration.
The main issue to be resolved is
whether or not Atty. Fontanilla committed misconduct as a member of the bar
when he solicited the said letter of reconsideration and later on using it to
support his arguments for the dismissal of the civil case.
We find that Atty. V. Emmanuel C.
Fontanilla is guilty of misconduct.
Misconduct, as defined in the case
of Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC,[1] is improper or wrong
conduct. It is the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and
not mere error in judgment (emphasis supplied).
We can not find fault with Atty.
Fontanilla’s desire to have the case amicably settled. To this end he made the suggestion that Mr.
Osop write the letter of reconsideration to serve as the starting point for the
negotiation.
In open court, Atty. Fontanilla
intimated that Chancellor Muslim had the power to reconsider the termination of
Mr. Osop’s services in MSU General Santos City and made it clear that he could
probably convince the chancellor to reconsider his decision if a letter of
reconsideration is written.
The Indorsement made by Chancellor
Muslim to the University President indubitably showed that it is the latter who
is the proper authority to resolve the letter of reconsideration.
The act of Atty. Fontanilla in
rushing to court and filing the Manifestation the minute he got the Indorsement
brings out in the open his not being totally bent on the idea of negotiation
even if he was the one who broached the idea and his desire to have the case
dismissed at the expense of Mr. Osop.
Furthermore, since it is the University President who would decide on
complainant’s letter, it would have been prudent of Atty. Fontanilla to
preserve the status quo and wait for the resolution on the said letter.
It is deplorable that the letter
written by Mr. Osop in good faith and upon the solicitation of respondent was
used against him as ammunition to have his case dismissed. And that this unconscionable act was done by
a member of the Philippine Bar.
Atty. Fontanilla’s employment of
the said letter against the interest of Mr. Osop, after he had actively
solicited the same, was not proper and revealed his lack of candor and absence
of good faith in his dealings with Mr. Osop.
Moreover, Atty. Fontanilla
conveniently omitted to state in his motion to dismiss that the letter of
reconsideration was written at his solicitation to facilitate a possible
settlement. The said omission is not
only unfair to Mr. Osop but had a tendency to mislead the court as to the true
circumstances material to resolving the incident.
Forum-shopping exists when the
petitioner files multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues in
two or more tribunals or agencies.[2]
It is highly unfair of Atty.
Fontanilla to accuse Mr. Osop of forum-shopping solely on the basis of the
letter of reconsideration, as complainant did not file multiple petitions or
complaints involving the same issues in two or more tribunals or agencies. In the case at bar, Mr. Osop had only
harbored the idea of seeking relief before the courts. Hence, the filing of Civil Case No. 6381.
Even if the case was dismissed due
to lack of jurisdiction, it does not excuse Atty. Fontanilla’s actuation of
imputing forum-shopping and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies when the
same are baseless.
While we find that there is a
clear case of misconduct, as Atty. Fontanilla has not been candid and fair in
his dealings with the complainant, the penalties of either suspension or
disbarment are too harsh to be imposed upon him.
It has been said that charges
meriting disciplinary action against a member of the Bar generally involve the
motives that induced him to commit the act or acts charged and that, to justify
disbarment or suspension, the case against him must be clear and free from
doubt, not only as to the act charged but as to his motive. As punishment by disbarment or suspension
will deeply affect a lawyer’s professional life, neither should be imposed
unless (the) case against him is free from doubt not only as to the acts
charged but as to his motive.[3] There is nothing in the
record to clearly show the motivation which induced Atty. Fontanilla to do what
he did.
The actuation of Atty. Fontanilla,
although improper, was mitigated when he apologized to Mr. Osop and Atty.
Alconera in open court and by the absence of material damage caused to the
complainant. Moreover, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline finds that there is no evidence on record of past
misconduct attributed to herein respondent.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, respondent Atty. V.
Emmanuel C. Fontanilla is hereby REPRIMANDED.
He is further WARNED that any repetition of the same or similar
infractions would be dealt with more severely.
Let this judgment be entered in respondent’s personal record as a member
of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.