FACTS:
The complainant received a demand-letter
from the respondent as legal counsel of one Nemesia Garganian claiming for the
support of the alleged child of the complainant with the latter. A few days
thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno
(Agaw), an emissary of the complainant. In this letter, the
respondent listed down the alleged additional financial demands of Ms.
Garganian against the complainant and discussed the courses of action that he
would take against the complainant should the latter fail to comply with his
obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son.
It was alleged that the real
father of Ms. Garganian’s son was the complainant’s brother and that the
complainant merely assumed his brother’s obligation to appease Ms. Garganian
who was threatening to sue them. The complainant then did not comply
with the demands against him.
Consequently, the respondent
filed a complaint with
the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutor’s Office) of Dumaguete City against
the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim, and one Albina Ong, for alleged violation
of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Anti-Dummy Law.
The next day, the respondent
filed another criminal complaint against the complainant, Lim, Ong and Adela
Peralta for their alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
In addition, the respondent
commenced administrative cases against the complainant before the Bureau of
Domestic Trade, the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, and the Office
of the Solicitor General. According
to the complainant, these cases were subsequently denied due course and
dismissed by the aforesaid government agencies.
The foregoing prompted the
complainant to file the present case for disbarment. The records
show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide
him any information against the complainant just so he would have a leverage in
his actions against the latter. The complainant branded the respondent’s
tactics as “highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical,
constituting…malpractice of law and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.”
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent
is guilty of malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of lawyer.
HELD: YES.
The relevant rule to the case at
bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of
the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that “a lawyer shall employ
only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.”
We find the respondent’s action
to be malicious as the cases he instituted against the complainant did not have
any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms. Garganian. Clearly,
the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His
behavior is inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules
that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding and he
shall not do any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
The ethics of the legal profession
rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair
play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be
disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity. Public
confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent ATTY.
ELPIDIO D. UNTO is hereby declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five (5) months and
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with
more severely.
Comments
Post a Comment