Zafra III v.

Pagatpatan
A.C. No. 12457 – April 2, 2019
EN BANC
SUMMARY
● Complainant, Fr. Zafra, filed an estafa case against clients of Respondent, Atty. Pagatpatan. Respondent then
wrote to the Bishop in charge of Fr. Zafra, requesting an investigation on Fr. Zafra’s actions.
● Fr. Zafra then filed a complaint against Respondent with the IBP for violating the CPR in sending the letter.
○ He claims that Respondent encouraged his clients to make untruthful accusations against Fr. Zafra and
that Respondent sent the letter to satisfy his client’s animosity towards him.
○ He also claims that Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, having been
suspended by the Court and who has not yet lifted the same.
● The IBP did not find Respondent administratively liable for sending the letter because there was no
malice/bad faith. However, they found him liable for his continued practice of law and recommended
suspension for another 3 years.
● The SC modified the decision of the IBP declaring Respondent guilty of simple misconduct for sending the
letter and disbarring him for his unauthorized practice of law.
○ The SC found that there was malicious intent on the part of Respondent. The letter was not based on a
sincere purpose to discipline Fr. Zafra but to bring a threat to force him to settle the estafa case, as
Respondent did not want the case to proceed to a full-blown trial.
■ In Respondent’s Answer to the complaint, he said he wrote the letter to convince Fr. Zafra to
settle “silently”.
○ The Court found Respondent to have wantonly disobeyed his duties as an officer of the court
which shows utter disrespect to the Court and the legal profession, which is a ground for disbarment
under Sec. 27, Rule 138 RoC.
■ There is no proof that he served the suspension or moved for the lift of the suspension order.
■ He represented litigants for 11 years despite the suspension and would have continued to do
so if Fr. Zafra did not bring the issue to their attention.
■ Thus, there is a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court, which warrants disbarment.
PER CURIAM:
FACTS OF THE CASE
● Fr. Zafra (Complainant) filed an estafa case against clients of Atty. Pagatpatan (Respondent).
● During the pendency of the case, Respondent wrote a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao
Del Sur, requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra for concocting stories against his clients, “which was not
only a sin, but a mortal sin”. (spicy)
● Although Fr. Zafra was able to clear his name with the Board of Consultors with the Bishop. he was
embarrassed by the malicious letter previously sent by Respondent.
● Fr. Zafra filed a complaint against Respondent with IBP for violating Rule 1.02 CPR for sending the letter.
o He claims that Respondent instigated his clients to make libelous and untruthful accusations.
o The writing and sending the letter to the Bishop was to gratify the personal vendetta and animosity of
his clients.
o Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law having been suspended in 2005 for 2
years but the suspension order has not yet been lifted by the SC.
● Atty. Pagatpatan asserts that there was nothing unethical in writing the letter because he aided his clients in
bringing to the attention of the Bishop the motives of Fr. Zafra in filing the complaint and it was for the
purpose of convincing Fr. Zafra to settle “silently”; it was not intended to malign his reputation.
o He likewise does not deny in practicing despite the order of suspension, but reasoned that he
needed to continue working to support his family and manifests withdrawing his appearances in cases
he is handling (including the estafa case).
● June 13 2018, IBP recommended suspension for 3 years.
 o IBP did not find Respondent admin liable in writing the letter-complaint because there was no
prohibition for lawyers to write a letter on matters pending before the courts to the Bishop concerning
priests in his jurisdiction and there was no malice or bad faith.
o Nevertheless, they found that Respondent was wilfully disobedient to a lawful order of a superior
court which is grounds for suspension/disbarment under Sec. 27, Rule 138 RoC when he continued to
practice law for 13 years despite his suspension.
● July 12 2018, IBP-BoG modified the penalty to suspension from practice of law for 3 years after serving his
previous suspension from practice for 2 years.
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
W/N Atty. Pagatpatan is administratively liable for sending the letter and for the unauthorized practice of law? - YES
● He was motivated by malice in writing the letter.
○ The letter-request was not based on a sincere purpose to discipline Fr. Zafra for his actions but to
bring a threat to force him to settle the estafa case, as Respondent did not want the case to proceed
to a full-blown trial.
○ In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, lawyers are duty-bound "to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged."
■ It is immaterial that the letter was filed with the Bishop and not the courts.
■ Pagatpatan, as a member of the bar, is an "oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must
be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.
○ Disbarment is severe since he is only guilty of simple misconduct.
● He wantonly disobeyed his duties as an officer of the court which shows utter disrespect to the Court and the
legal profession.
○ Atty. Pagatpatan has been practicing law despite the suspension order of June 15 2005 and there
are no records showing that he served the suspension or moved to lift said order (since he admits he’s
been practicing despite the suspension).
○ Sec. 27, Rule 138, RoC provides that a member of a bar may be disbarred/suspended as an attorney by
the SC for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior or or for willfully appearing as
an attorney for a part to a case w/o authority to do so.
■ Atty. Pagatpatan had been representing party litigants in court from 2005 until the instant case
was filed before the IBP in 2016
■ Thus, he has made a mockery of this Court's authority by defying this Court's suspension
order for over eleven (11) years.
■ If Fr. Zafra had not filed the instant case, Atty. Pagatpatan would have continued disregarding
the suspension.
○ Actions constitute gross misconduct.
○ The practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent
regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
○ Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his
clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Supreme Court, which
made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw that
privilege.
RULING
GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and FINED for unethical behavior in writing the letter
DISBARRED from practice of law effectively immediately for practicing despite the suspension