Facts:
The case begins with Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr., the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 42, filing a Verified Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment against Atty. Manuel N. Camacho. The complaint was lodged for violations of Rules 10.01, 11.03, 13.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The catalyst was a civil case “Pathways Trading International, Inc. vs. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., et al.” where Atty. Camacho represented Pathways. Allegations against Camacho ranged from attempting to fraternize with Judge Dumlao, invoking connections with Supreme Court Justices and prominent individuals, to explicit bribery and threats. Upon defendants filing a Notice of Appeal, Camacho escalated his attempts, proposing a share of attorney’s fees to Dumlao for favorable rulings and threatening disbarment against Dumlao if refused. The situation intensified with incidents involving court sheriff and demands for garnishment orders benefitting Pathways, accompanied by further threats and intimidations.
Procedurally, after the disbarment complaint was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), it moved to the Supreme Court, which, after the lack of response from Camacho, referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Camacho guilty, initially recommending disbarment but the IBP Board of Governors lessened the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Issues:
1. Whether Atty. Manuel N. Camacho violated Canons 10, 11, 13, and 19 and Rules 10.01, 11.03, 13.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. The appropriate penalty for the established violations, considering Atty. Camacho had previously been disbarred for separate infractions.
Court’s Decision:
The Philippine Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings but adjusted the proposed penalty. It held that Atty. Camacho indeed violated the aforementioned Canons and Rules by attempting bribery, threatening court personnel, disrespecting court officers, and misrepresenting his influence. However, considering Camacho had been disbarred in a previous case, the Court noted that a suspension would be moot. Still, for the record in the OBC and potential future considerations if Camacho seeks reinstatement, the Court deemed a two-year suspension as the appropriate penalty for the offenses, had he not been disbarred.
Doctrine:
The decision reiterated that lawyers must adhere to the highest ethical standards, emphasizing the importance of integrity, professionalism, and respect for the judicial system. Lawyers are reminded that their conduct not only affects their career but also the public’s confidence in the legal profession and judicial system.
Class Notes:
1. **Influence Peddling and Attempted Bribery** – Manipulating judicial processes and offering bribes are severe violations demonstrating a lawyer’s disregard for legal ethics (Canon 13, Rule 13.01; Canon 10, Rule 10.01).
2. **Threatening and Disrespecting Court Personnel** – Threatening legal action to coerce judicial outcomes breaches the respect due to courts and their officers (Canon 11, Rule 11.03; Canon 19, Rule 19.01).
3. **Duty to the Judiciary** – The primary obligation of lawyers is not to their clients but to the fair administration of justice, subservient to ethical constraints.
4. **Sanction for Misconduct**- Disciplinary actions, including suspension and disbarment, emphasize accountability and serve as deterrents against professional misconduct.
Historical Background:
This case underscores the Philippine legal profession’s ongoing challenges with maintaining ethical standards among its practitioners. Through such disciplinary actions, the Supreme Court aims to fortify public trust in the legal and judicial systems, asserting that no lawyer’s connections or accolades exempt them from adherence to the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus ensuring the profession’s integrity is upheld.
Leave a Reply