Mendoza vs Gadon, June 26, 2019

FACTS:

• Complainant Dr. Helen Mendoza

o a dermatologist
o holds her clinic under an arrangement with Ambulatory Health Care Institute, Inc. (AHCII), where she paid monthly rental
fee for occupying a space in Clinica Manila
o rental fee is paid in addition to her purchase of equity in AHCII
o a certain portion of her professional fees shall be shared with AHCII

• 07 MAR 2009 – Dr. Mendoza treated a patient who had an allergic reaction to the medicine she prescribed. The patient returned the
next day to complain, but was disappointed by the way Dr. Mendoza handled the situation. The patient filed a complaint with Clinica
Manila.
• 13 MAR 2009 – AHCII suspended Dr. Mendoza from the practice of her profession.
O Dr. Mendoza alleges that it was Atty. Gadon, the corporate secretary and VP of AHCII, who suspended her without authorization
from the board of directors and without just cause.
• 04 APR 2009 – AHCII allowed Dr. Mendoza to resume the practice of dermatology in Clinica Manila but under a reduced number
of hours.
o Dr. Mendoza demanded the restoration of her original clinic hours, otherwise, she will file the appropriate criminal and civil
actions.
• 23 APR 2009 – Atty. Gadon responded that AHCII was revoking her privilege to practice in Clinica Manila and returning an amount
representing the equity she invested.
• 03 AUG 2009 – Dr. Mendoza filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Gadon charging the latter with violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR Canon 1, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19.
o Dr. Mendoza noted the very insulting manner the letter was worded; such words were “thoroughly unbecoming of a member
of the bar to write.”
o She also contended that Atty. Gadon fabricated lies stating the AHCII stating that AHCII had been dissolved to prevent her
from exercising her right to examine the corporate records.
o Atty. Gadon’s treatment of her counsel, Atty. Martinez, violated the Canons of Professional Ethics after Atty. Gadon moved
that Atty. Martinez be found guilty of giving erroneous legal advice to his client.
o Atty. Gadon also had no qualms in using intemperate language, and unbecoming statements that displayed a lack of courtesy
and candor towards his professional colleagues. (see notes for an excerpt of Atty. Gadon’s letter dated April 23, 2009 to Dr.
Mendoza)
• Atty Gadon’s Answer:
o His letter-response to Dr. Mendoza is frank, straight forward, equivocal, and not “very insulting” as claimed by Dr. Mendoza.
o The current company is different from the previous one since the registration of AHCII had been revoked. As a result, Dr.
Mendoza cannot exercise her right as a stockholder of the new corporation.
o The instant case is not the proper forum to determine the rights of Dr. Mendoza and cannot be a ground for a disbarment case
since the circumstance was not caused by him.
o If anybody should be disbarred, it should be the legal counsel of Dr. Mendoza for being arrogant in sending a demand letter
without first ascertaining the facts on which he could base his demands.
o Dr. Mendoza’s legal counsel is trying to become an ambulance chaser, full of bravado, empty rhetoric and grandstanding
who would blindly give wrong advice to a client just to foment controversy.
o The complaint states no cause of action and was filed in order for the legal counsel to save face towards his client since he
cannot admit committing a mistake in threatening the management with legal action after the suspension of the clinic
privileges of Dr. Mendoza.
• IBP Report and Recommendation
o Commissioner recommended that Atty. Gadon be suspended from the practice of law for 4 months.
o 11 FEB 2014 - Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva,
with the modification that the suspension be for 3 months.

ISSUE/ HELD:

1. W/N Atty. Gadon was guilty of violating Canon 1 and Canon 8 of CPR. – YES.
• The language of Atty. Gadon in his reply-response to Dr. Mendoza was violative of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR
o An excerpt of Atty. Gadon’s letter dated April 23, 2002 to Dr. Mendoza reads: “We are prepared to face any legal suits that
would come out of this exercise, and assuming you may get a favorable result after 10 years, that is IF you will win, which is
still a big question since we will not also take this matter sitting down as we have a lot of resources to uses as well while in
the meantime you altogether forfeit your clinic practice.” (see notes for the portion quoted by the Court)
o Atty. Gadon's primary duty is to obey the laws and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Corollary to this duty is
his obligation to abstain from dishonest or deceitful conduct, as well as from “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system."
 o Atty. Gadon’s remarks about the slow justice system and insinuations that cases are won based on abundance of resources,
tramp the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and the judicial system.
o Atty. Gadon should refrain from using abusive and intemperate language which displays arrogance towards the legal system
and his colleagues.
•The language of Atty. Gadon in his rejoinder violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the CPR
o The pertinent portion in his rejoinder reads:
o “At the risk of being reprimanded by this Honorable Commission, respondent [cannot] help and [cannot] resist expressing his
thought that this is dumbest and the most stupid statement I have encountered in my years of practice of law. In fact, people
who have read the statement nearly died of laughing and also declared that it was the most stupid statement they have ever
heard in their entire lives. They even commented that people responsible for writing this statement ought to commit suicide
for being too ignorant.” (see notes for the portion quoted by the Court)
o The language imputing ignorance and wrong-doing to Dr. Mendoza’s counsel goes against the Rule on candor, fairness and
truthfulness since Atty. Gadon did not argue against Dr. Mendoza’s issued but against the propriety of the legal advice
dispense by the counsel of Dr. Mendoza.
o Atty. Gadon failed to conduct himself toward his fellow lawyer with that courtesy that all have the right to expect.
• Other quoted portions of Atty. Gadon’s answer to the complaint filed by Dr. Mendoza before the IBP that show the malicious and
arrogant language used by Atty. Gadon:
o “another outrageously funny and ridiculous statement totally devoid of any logic and reason… Who does she think she is –
the only qualified doctor in town?... From where did she get this outrageously funny, conceited and arrogant claim?”
o “is the hands-down killer which is grossly and outrageously misplaced allegations and claims. From where did she base her
claim on the birth right to own clinic hours in Clinica Manila?”
o “is denied for being outrageously hilarious… Since when does a frank candid words become illegal? Since when does a
language become “illegal[?]” Is there such a thing as “illegal language”? I am not a language expert myself, somebody help
me please;”
o “is outrageously funny and therefore denied. What does the doctrine of [res ipsa
o loquitor] got to do with the disbarment case over the incident? Since when does a frank and unequivocal letter which is not
even libelous a ground for disbarment? Is she getting the proper legal advice? What is this?”
o “is again outrageously funny… Where do they get these twisted ideas and strange concepts? Are these people suffering from
Alzheimer’s or what have you? Where do they get these gutter logic and reasoning?”
o “If there is anybody who should be disbarred, it is the legal adviser of the complainant. In my personal opinion, her
adviser committed a big mistake in sending an arrogant demand letter without first ascertaining all the facts that he
could base his demands. A seasoned lawyer would have made a careful study of the facts and issued from all angles
before advising a client because the client will suffer more if it will act on the basis of a careless advice. The lawyer
failed to verify his facts about the alleged “lease contract” of complainant with Clinica Manila. What Lease
contract? Does he think Shoemart management would allow its tenants to sublease the rented premises? When he
was born… The respondent hopes that this lawyer is not just trying [to] become an ambulance chaser who is full of
bravado, empty rhetoric, and grandstanding who would blindly give wrong advice to his client to foment a
controversy hoping it would end up in litigation. A seasoned lawyer, in the same situation would advice the client to
settle her issued through a personal letter and personal approach given the circumstances that the matter is just a
business concern and that a humble, discerning, diplomatic approach is the key ingredient rather than sending
threatening demand letters.”
o o “. . . This is a classic example of an approach based on miscalculation, misplaced bravado, and
grandstanding resulting to damage and prejudice to the client’s cause and interest.”
2. W/N Atty. Gadon should be disbarred. – NO.
• “We find the penalty of disbarment too severe to be warranted in the instant case”
• Francia v. Atty. Abdon
o The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the
bar.
o Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.
• We find the penalty of suspension, considering the gravity and consequence of Atty. Gadon’s actions, to be the appropriate penalty
in the instant case.

FULL DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, finding the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to be fully supported by the evidence on record and
applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to SUSPEND Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months, to commence immediately upon receipt of this Resolution, for violation of Canon 1, Canon 8, an d Rule 8.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Atty. Gadon is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution within five (5) days from notice, to enable this Court to
determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administration which shall
circulate the same in all courts in the country, and attach to the personal records of Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon in the Office of the Bar
Confidant.