|
ROBERT
BERNHARD BUEHS, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. INOCENCIO T. BACATAN, Respondent. |
A.C. No.
6674 Present: Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES,* chico-nazario, velasco, jr., nachura, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: June
30, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before
this Court is a petition for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Inocencio T.
Bacatan filed on
It
appears that on July 19, 1993, Genaro Alvarez and Sergia Malukuh, two employees
of Mar Fishing Company, Inc., filed a labor case for illegal dismissal with
prayer for backwages and other damages against said company and/or complainant
in the latter’s capacity as Executive Vice- President and Chief Operations
Officer of Miramar Fish Company, Inc., and former General Manager of Mar
Fishing Co., Inc., and the Mar Fishing Workers Union National Federation of
Labor (MFWU-NFL).
The
case was docketed as NCMB RB IX Case No. VA-12-0045-879 entitled Genaro Alvarez and Sergia Malukuh v. Mar
Fishing Company, Inc. and/or Robert Buehs and Mar Fishing Workers Union NFL,
and later assigned to respondent, who was then an accredited Voluntary
Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office 9, Zamboanga City.
Respondent
rendered a Decision[1] dated P1,563,360.00. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) modified said Decision by deleting the award of moral and
exemplary damages.[2] The Decision became final
and executory when the Court denied complainant’s petition for review on certiorari and, subsequently, his motion
for reconsideration, in its
Resolution[3]
dated
Upon motion of Alvarez and Malukuh, respondent
issued a Writ of Execution[4] on
In
the said case, the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on
During
the pendency of the proceedings, Alvarez and Malukuh, represented by respondent
as their counsel, filed a criminal complaint for violation of Article 41 of the
Labor Code against petitioner. Respondent,
in his Indorsement[5] dated
On
In
the present petition with administrative complaint against respondent,
complainant alleged that:
1.
Respondent
clearly represented conflicting interests by acting as counsel for Alvarez and
Malukuh in the criminal case they filed against herein complainant while the
labor case filed by Alvarez and Malukuh against complainant was still pending
before him.
2.
Respondent
usurped the judicial powers of the Regional Trial Court and the higher judicial
authorities by issuing a Hold Departure Order/Watchlist Order without any
notice or hearing.[7]
On the other hand, in his Comment[8]
dated May 3, 2005, respondent asserted that it was complainant who resorted to
legal maneuvers to delay, if not evade, his monetary obligations. Thus, the former was compelled to ask for an
Order to place petitioner in the Watchlist of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID), as the latter had resigned from his position. He also claimed that it was erroneous to say
that the issue was still pending with the arbitrator at the stage of execution
because as of
Respondent,
in turn, filed a Counter-Affidavit[9]
wherein he prayed that the petition for disbarment against him be dismissed,
and that the name of Atty. Dennis Pangan, counsel for petitioner, be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys. He likewise
alleged that all the foregoing pleadings, including those filed through Atty.
Pangan, were designed to unreasonably delay the judgment of the court.
In
its Resolution[10] dated
On
On
Upon
submission of complainant’s exhibits and presentation of the witnesses, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, in an Order dated
In
the Report and Recommendation of the IBP dated
The
Investigating Commissioner also discovered from the respondent’s Comment dated
In
view of her findings, Commissioner Quisumbing recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, and thereafter, submitted
her Report and Recommendation to the Board of Governors of the IBP.
In
its Resolution dated
x x x finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules, and considering that Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
for representing conflicting interest, gross ignorance of the law for issuing a
hold-departure and watchlist order without authority, and likewise, for failure
to update his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty.
Inocencio T. Bacatan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
years.
In
an Indorsement dated
In
a Resolution dated
On
In
a Resolution dated
Respondent
claimed that when he indorsed the criminal complaint for the complainants, he
could already do so as counsel because he had already rendered his Decision in
the illegal dismissal case.
Respondent
is mistaken. Jurisdiction, once
acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the
case is terminated, or until the writ of execution has been issued to enforce
the judgment.[15] The Indorsement was dated
Even
assuming that he had already lost jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case,
he remains liable for representing conflicting interests. Relevant provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility[17]
state:
Rule 15.01 – A
lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or
is own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule
15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
In
Samala v. Valencia,[18]
the Court held that a lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting duties
any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles
of public policy and good taste, which springs from the relation of attorney
and client, which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers should not only keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
A
conflict of interests also exists when the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance thereof.[19]
In
the present case, respondent was appointed as Voluntary Arbitrator for the
parties in the illegal dismissal case. He took on the duty to act as a disinterested
person to hear the parties’ contentions and give judgment between them.[20]
However, instead of exhibiting neutrality and impartiality expected of an
arbitrator, respondent indorsed a criminal complaint to the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Zamboanga City for possible criminal prosecution against herein
complainant, and signed the said Indorsement as counsel for complainants in the
illegal dismissal case. The Court cannot
accept the contention of respondent that the phrase “counsel for the
complainants,” found in the Indorsement, was a mere misprint. For if it were so, he could have easily
crossed out the phrase or prepared another Indorsement deleting said phrase. His claim of misprint, therefore, is a last
futile attempt based on the clearly established evidence that he was acting in
both capacities as counsel and arbitrator at the same time, an act which was
clearly reprehensible and violative of the principle of conflict of interests.
Respondent
likewise showed gross ignorance of the law when he issued a Hold Departure
Order requesting the BID to place petitioner in its Watchlist, completely contravening
Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which provides that said Orders shall be
issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Courts.[21] Apropos is
Tadlip v. Borres, Jr.,[22] where
therein respondent, lawyer and provincial adjudicator, failed to apply the specific
provisions of the 1994 New Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Regional Arbitration Board (DARAB).
The Court found him guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and ruled that, since respondent became part of the
quasi-judicial system of the government, his case may be likened to
administrative cases of judges whose manner of deciding cases was also subject
of administrative cases.
Lastly,
as the Investigating Commissioner also discovered that respondent failed to
update his IBP membership dues and pay his community tax certificate for the
year 2004, he is likewise liable under Sections 9 and 10,[23] Rule
139-A of the Rules Court, which read:
Section 9. Membership dues. – Every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a
Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members.
Section
10. Effect of non-payment of dues. –
Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for
the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
Having
established the administrative liabilities of respondent, the Court now proceeds
to determine the corresponding penalty.
Under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 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.[24]
Gross misconduct has been defined as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly
unlawful conduct on the part of the person involved in the administration of
justice, conduct that is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. Such conduct is generally motivated by
a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does
not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.[25]
In
previous cases involving representation of conflicting interests, the Court has
sanctioned erring lawyers either by reprimand, or by suspension from the
practice of law from six months to two years.[26]
In
the afore-cited case Tadlip v. Borres, Jr.,[27] therein
respondent lawyer and provincial adjudicator found guilty of gross ignorance of
the law was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In
Santos, Jr. v. Llamas,[28]
where the respondent lawyer did not pay his IBP dues for eight years because he
believed that as a senior citizen, he was exempt from paying the same, the
Court suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year, or until the
respondent paid his dues.
In
the present case, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the imposition of
a one (1) year suspension, while the IBP Board of Governors recommended a two
(2) year suspension. The Court, taking
into account the recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner and the
Board of Governors of the IBP, deems it appropriate to impose a penalty of two
(2)- year suspension upon respondent, which is within the range of the penalty
of six (6) months to two (2) years for offenses similar to those committed by
respondent Atty. Bacatan, as held in several cases.[29]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Inocencio
T. Bacatan is found GUILTY of gross
misconduct for representing conflicting interests, gross ignorance of the law
for issuing an order without authority, and failure to update his membership
dues to the IBP; and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years, effective upon receipt of this
Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
On leave CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
* On leave.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 13-14.
[2] Docketed as C.A. GR SP No. 45145,
entitled “Mar Fishing Company, Inc., et
al. v. Alvarez et al.”
[3] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 50.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 2-4.
[12] Rollo, Vol. III, p. 1.
[13]
[14] Dated
[15] Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No.
140374, November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA 134, 141, citing Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato, 327 SCRA 521 (2000).
[16] Rollo,
Vol. I, pp. 108-109.
[17] Promulgated
by the Supreme Court on
[18] A.C. No. 5439,
[19] Pormento, Sr. v. Pontevedra, A.C. No. 5128,
[20] Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged, Fifth
Ed., p. 56.
[21] Supra note 14.
[22] A.C.
No. 5708,
[23] Effective
[24] As
amended by SC Resolutions dated
[25] Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr., A.C.
No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 199, 204, citing Yap v. Judge Inopiquez, Jr.,
403 SCRA 141 (2003).
[26] Paz v. Sanchez, A.C. No. 6125, September 19,
2006, 502 SCRA 209, 218, citing Gamilla
v. Mariño, Jr., 339 SCRA 308 (2003); Abragan
v. Rodriguez, 429 Phil. 607 (2002); Artezuela
v. Maderazo, 431 Phil. 135 (2002); De
Guzman v. De Dios, 403 Phil. 222 (2001); Maturan v. Gonzales, 350 Phil. 882, 887 (1998); Vda. De Alisbo v. Jalandoni, Sr., 199
SCRA 321 (1991); and Natan v. Capule,
91 Phil. 640 (1952).
[27] Supra note 22.
[28] A.C. No. 4749,
[29] Supra note 26.