Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
RODRIGO A.
MOLINA,
Complainant, - versus - ATTY. CEFERINO
R. MAGAT, Respondent. |
|
A.C. No. 1900 Present: PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson,* ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: June 13,
2012 |
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is the undated Resolution[1] of the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
The Facts:
The case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment[2] filed
by Rodrigo A. Molina (complainant) against Atty. Magat before the Court
on
In his Answer,[3] Atty.
Magat averred that in so far as the filing of the motion to quash was
concerned, he was really under the impression that a criminal case in lieu of
the two (2) charges was indeed filed and that the said motion was opposed by
the other party and was denied by the court. He admitted his appearances in
court while under suspension. He explained
that his appearance in the
The complaint was endorsed to the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation.[4]
Thereafter, the OSG transmitted the records of the case to the IBP for proper
disposition.
In his Report and Recommendation[5] dated P50,000.00. It stated that:
This Commission finds it hard to
believe that respondent would have mistakenly been under the impression that a
case for physical injuries was filed against his client when there was no such
case filed. Respondent was either negligently reckless or he had mischievous
intentions to deceive the trial court. In any case, he committed a
transgression for which he should be punished.
However, the graver sin of
respondent is, and this he admits, that he appeared as counsel before a trial
court on at least two (2) occasions notwithstanding the fact that he had been
suspended by the Supreme Court from the practice of law. Despite professing his
contrition in his Answer, this Commission is not convinced. Otherwise,
respondent should have had, at the onset of the proceedings, admitted to his
misdeeds and put his fate squarely with the disciplinary body. Yet, he
proceeded to fight the charges against him.
Moreover, if respondent was indeed
moved by altruistic intentions when he made those appearances before the trial
court despite having been suspended, he could have so informed the Presiding
Judge of his plight and explained why the party he was representing could not
attend. Yet, what he proceeded to do was to enter his appearance as counsel.
Indeed, it is beyond doubt he trifled with the suspension order handed by the
Supreme Court.
If there is one thing going for
respondent, it is that the passage of time with which this case remains pending
makes it difficult to impose a penalty of suspension on him. Under normal
circumstances, this Commission would not have thought twice of suspending
respondent. However, the acts committed by respondent occurred over TWENTY (20)
YEARS ago. It would not be fair to now impose a suspension on respondent, more
so considering that he is, in all likelihood, in the twilight of his career.
On the other hand, there is still
a need to discipline respondent if only to set an example to other lawyers that
suspension orders of the Supreme Court cannot simply be ignored. Thus, it is
the recommendation of the undersigned that respondent be meted a fine of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00) and that he be heavily reprimanded for his actions, the passage
of time notwithstanding.[6]
On
The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but
not with respect to the penalty.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those
who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of
legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[8]
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the
standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01,
which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
In this case, the Court agrees with the observation
of the IBP that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to
mislead the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on
the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any false and untruthful
statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for
slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was
to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
Furthermore, Atty. Magat expressly admitted
appearing in court on two occasions despite having been suspended from the
practice of law by the Court. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for
a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court and/or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do so. It
provides:
SEC. 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 so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. [Underlining supplied]
As stated, if Atty. Magat was truly moved by
altruistic intentions when he appeared before the trial court despite having
been suspended, he could have informed the Presiding Judge of his plight and
explained why the party he was representing could not attend. On the contrary,
Atty. Magat kept his silence and proceeded to represent his client as counsel.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ceferino R.
Magat is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar
offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate
Justice
* Per Special Order No. 1228 dated
** Designated Acting Member in lieu
of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated
[1] Rollo,
p. 231.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Lijauco v. Terrado, 532 Phil. 1, 5 (2006).