A.C. No. 2409 – 241 Phil. 455 – 157 SCRA 762 – Legal Ethics – Mutual Bickering Between Lawyers
Atty. Manuel Macias was the counsel of Spouses Valdes for at least 20 years. Spouses Valdes were a wealthy couple owning several properties and corporations. There were still pending cases against the spouses and their properties when they died. Their adopted daughter, Rosario Llora sought to continue said cases but she intimated to Macias that she would like him to withdraw as their counsel and that he be replaced by Atty. Malig. Atty. Macias then filed a motion in the testate proceedings involving the properties of the late Valdes where he asked for the payment of legal services that he had been performing for the late spouses. Llora through Atty. Malig opposed the said motion arguing among others that what Atty. Macias is asking for fees is too much. Llora then asked for a meeting with Macias where she said she’ll withdraw their opposition to his Motion if Macias shall withdraw from all pending cases he’s handling which involve properties of the late Valdes and that Macias shall give her P10k. Macias complied so he signed a waiver and issued a check in the amount of P10k. But Macias changed his mind and so he filed a civil case for damages against Llora. He also filed a disbarment case against Atty. Malig where he accused the latter of representing Llora while Macias was still the family’s family representative; that Malig extorted P10k from Macias; that he induced Llora to disposed of their properties which have pending cases in order to evade attorneys’ fees which were due Macias. Malig filed a counterclaim in the disbarment case where he accused Macias of filing in bad faith a civil case against Llora; that Macias made unethical representation of Llora; Malig also accused Macias as a “denizen” of a “jungle” who “prey[s] upon his brother lawyer [and] his [own] clients” and likened him to “a baneful snake biting the hand of the client who fed him”.
ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations of both counsels should be given credit.
HELD: No. Both their allegations against each other are baseless. HOWEVER, both should be given disciplinary sanctions for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the court. Both are too eager to throw baseless accusations against each other. On the part of Macias for instance, he’s too eager to accuse Malig of extorting money from him (the P10k asked from him by Llora) when in fact said money was asked in consideration of Llora’s withdrawal of her opposition to Macias’ Motion in the testate proceedings. On the part of Malig, his use of tactless language against Macias is deplorable. Each party here has shown himself to be too ready to believe the other is guilty of serious misconduct in the practice of the profession to which they both belong while vehemently asserting his own good faith. Each attorney here was too prone to use intemperate and offensive language in describing the professional behavior of the other.
The court however noted that Macias has been subjected to previous administrative complaints because of his use of improper and unethical language where he was severely reprimanded hence his punishment is more severe than Malig this time around. Macias is suspended for three months while Malig is fined P5,000.00.
