Republic of the Philippines
Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 3149 August 17, 1994
CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent.
Florentino G. Temporal for complainant.
Trabajo Lim Law Office for respondent.
PADILLA, J.:
Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty. Alexander H. Lim,
seeking the latter's disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave
misconduct.
The circumstances which led to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of P92,100.00
from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant executed a promissory note in
favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks
which she regularly receives from the United States government as a widow
of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of assignment states that the
same shall be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise
executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect
and receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The
above documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent
Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel.
On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after the execution of the
aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant informed the
Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of
attorney. As a consequence, Geesnell Yap filed a complaint for injunction
with damages against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared
as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado
appeared for complainant (as defendant).
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on
23 January 1985, preventing complainant from getting her pension checks
from the Tagbilaran City post office. Yap later filed an urgent omnibus motion
to cite complainant in contempt of court for attempting to circumvent the
preliminary injunction by changing her address to Mandaue City. Upon
motion by Yap, the court also issued an order dated 21 May 1985 expanding
the scope of the preliminary injunction to prevent all post offices in the
Philippines from releasing pension checks to complainant.
On 26 July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to allow the latter
to withdraw the pension checks. This motion does not bear the signatures of
complainant's counsel of record but only the signatures of both parties,
"assisted by" respondent Attorney Alexander H. Lim.
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a compromise
agreement again without the participation of the former's counsel. In the
compromise agreement, it was stated that complainant Cerina B. Likong
admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein
that complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly
installments over a period of 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum
discounted every six (6) months. The compromise agreement was approved
by the trial court on 15 August 1985.
On 24 November 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed the present complaint for
disbarment, based on the following allegations:
7. In all these motions, complainant was prevented
from seeking assistance, advise and signature of any of
her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof was furnished to
either of them or at least to complainant herself
despite the latter's pleas to be furnished copies of the
same;
8. Complainant was even advised by respondent that it
was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under
the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the
settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous
expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent
was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry
about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to
save her time; and in any event respondent already
took care of everything;
9.
fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some
other form of mendacity practiced on her by
respondent;
10. Finally, respondent fraudulently or without
authority assumed to represent complainant and
connived in her defeat; . . . 1
Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for complainant,
Atty. Roland B. Inting had abandoned his client. Atty. Lim further stated that
the other counsel, Atty. Enrico Aumentado, did not actively participate in the
case and it was upon the request of complainant and another debtor of Yap,
Crispina Acuna, that he (respondent) made the compromise agreement.
Respondent states that he first instructed complainant to notify her lawyers
but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned her since she could not pay
his attorney's fees.
Complainant filed a reply denying that she had been abandoned by her
lawyers. Complainant stated that respondent never furnished her lawyers
with copies of the compromise agreement and a motion to withdraw the
injunction cash bond deposited by Yap.
At the outset, it is worth noting that the terms of the compromise agreement
are indeed grossly loaded in favor of Geesnell L. Yap, respondent's client.
Complainant's original obligation was to pay P92,100.00 within one (1) year
from 4 October 1984. There is no provision in the promissory note signed by
her with respect to any interest to be paid. The only additional amount which
Yap could collect based on the promissory note was 25% of the principal as
attorney's fees in case a lawyer was hired by him to collect the loan.
In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated 2 August
1985, complainant's debt to Yap was increased to P150,000.00 (from
92,100.00) after the lapse of only ten (10) months. This translates to an
interest in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) per annum. In addition, the
compromise agreement provides that the P150,000.00 debt would be
payable in fifty-four (54) monthly installments at an interest of forty percent
(40%) per annum. No great amount of mathematical prowess is required to
see that the terms of the compromise agreement are grossly prejudicial to
complainant.
With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's counsel of the
compromise agreement, it is of record that complainant was represented by
two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting and Aumentado. Complainant states that
respondent prevented her from informing her lawyers by giving her the
reasons enumerated in the complaint and earlier quoted in this decision.
There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform opposing counsel
of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent
informed the trial court of the alleged abandonment of the complainant by
her counsel.
Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned by her
counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation,
and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which, as
previously discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial
to complainant.
Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal
profession.
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:
9. Negotiations with opposite party.
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 deal
only 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 the law.
The Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
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.
The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional conduct by
respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the imposition upon him of the
proper sanction from this Court. Such acts constituting malpractice and grave
misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence
and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being
attained.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby imposed the
penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR,
effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision.
Let a copy of this decision be entered in respondent's personal record as
attorney and 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.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000.]
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant, v. ATTYS. LUIS
MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES,
CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P.
BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES, Respondents.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code
of Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof,
viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"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." chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red
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.
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.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"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."cralaw virtua1aw library
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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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.chanrobles.com :
virtual law library

"x x x

"3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to

Withdraw from Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 will be filed by
them."cralaw virtua1aw library

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.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.