A.C. No. 778 – 63 Phil. 293 – Legal Ethics – Mutual Bickering Between Lawyers
Atty. Javier was the lawyer of Severina Teodoro in a civil case where Severina won. The court awarded P195.00 in her favor and said amount was delivered by the opposing party to Javier as Severina’s lawyer. Javier however failed to deliver said amount to her. Severina and her son then made demands for Javier to turn over the money and they warned him that if he fails to do so, they shall be filing a complaint against him in the Supreme Court. Javier failed to return the money. Subsequently, Severina hired the services of another lawyer, Atty. Cornejo who sent a demand letter to Javier. Javeir failed to pay yet again so Atty. Cornejo assisted Severina in filing an administrative complaint against Javier. The administrative complaint against Javier was eventually dismissed.
After said dismissal, Javier filed an administrative case against Cornejo accusing the latter of threatening him (by way of the demand letter) and instigating Severina to file an administrative case against him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative complaint of Atty. Javier has merit.
HELD: No. The language used in the demand letter is not threatening. It was an honest effort on the part of Cornejo to serve the interest of his client. The lawyer owes entire “devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and exertion of his utmost learning and ability”, to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
Cornejo could not have instigated Severina to file the administrative complaint. Severina already knew of what remedy to seek against Javier if he fails to deliver what’s due her even before she hired Cornejo. This is evident when she warned Javier that she’ll be filing an administrative complaint against him if he’ll fail to pay up.
In this case, the Supreme Court also stated: “mutual bickering and unjustifiable recrimination, between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court.”
