OSCAR R. MANAHAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. GREGORIO F. ORTEGA AND JOAQUIN L. MISA, RESPONDENTS.

Manahan versus Ortega and Misa

The Case

This is a disbarment case. Oscar R. Manahan, a lawyer of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, asked the Supreme Court to discipline two attorneys, Gregorio F. Ortega and Joaquin L. Misa, for malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct. Manahan alleged that the two lawyers had instigated and unduly encouraged their own office secretary, Angelita Magkasi, to file an administrative complaint against him. The case matters because it shows the Court's discipline in weighing charges against members of the Bar: hearsay and privileged communications are rejected as evidence, and a complainant's own loss of interest can sink his cause.

Procedural History

This was an original petition for disbarment filed directly with the Supreme Court by Manahan against Ortega and Misa. The respondents filed a verified answer with a countercharge for the disbarment of Manahan. The Court then referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. After investigation, the Solicitor General recommended dismissal of the complaint. The Supreme Court approved that recommendation and dismissed the case.

Facts

Oscar R. Manahan was counsel in a case for consignation of rentals of Angelita A. Magkasi, a secretary in the law firm of Salcedo, Del Rosario, Bito, Misa and Lozada. Following Manahan's advice, Angelita, in July and August 1976, gave four hundred pesos to Milagros Yenko, a receptionist-clerk in the same law office, to be turned over to Manahan for consignation in court. That amount represented two months' rental for the house Angelita was leasing from Caridad Mallari.

On September 8, 1976, Angelita was informed by her landlady that the rentals for July and August had not been deposited in court. Upon verification with the clerk of court of Quezon City, she discovered that Manahan had not consigned the amount in time to prevent her eviction. Because of his omission, she lost her legal right to remain in the premises. On September 17, 1976, Manahan sent his secretary to Angelita to return the four hundred pesos and to formally ask for her conformity to his withdrawal as counsel. Angelita refused. Instead, on September 22, she filed with the Secretary of Justice an administrative complaint against Manahan for dishonesty, lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. That case was later dismissed for insufficient proof of conversion, but Manahan was reprimanded because his act of accepting the four hundred pesos violated an office circular prohibiting lawyers of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office from receiving cash or valuables from clients.

As a countermove, Manahan filed a libel suit against Angelita with the City Fiscal's office of Manila. On December 9, 1976, Manahan filed with the Supreme Court the present petition for disbarment against Ortega and Misa, alleging that Angelita's complaint before the Secretary of Justice was made upon their instigation and undue encouragement for a corrupt motive, using undue pressure and influence upon her considering that she was a mere employee in the law firm where the respondents were connected. He attached an affidavit he secured from Milagros Yenko. In that affidavit, Yenko stated that on September 17, 1976 she was summoned to the room of Misa and, in the presence of Angelita and Ortega, was asked about the four hundred pesos. When she suggested that Misa ask Manahan, Misa was apparently irked, prompting her to leave. While at her desk, she overheard Misa and Ortega convincing Angelita to file charges against Manahan, assuring her that the office would back her up and that she would lose nothing. She did not hear Angelita's reply.

Issues

• Whether or not the affidavit of Milagros Yenko is admissible as evidence against the respondents.
• Whether or not the complaint for disbarment against Ortega and Misa should be dismissed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on privileged communications, was invoked by the respondents and sustained by the Court:

An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

This provision bears on the case because the Court held that the Yenko affidavit was a privileged communication, and it was rejected as evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the affidavit of Milagros Yenko was properly rejected. It was hearsay, because Yenko herself did not testify and could not be cross-examined on what she claimed to have overheard. It was also a privileged communication under Section 21(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, since it recounted communications made in the course of professional employment. The Court said the affidavit was rejected as evidence for being hearsay and for being a privileged communication.

On the second issue, the Court noted that the inadmissibility of the Yenko affidavit and the apparent disinterest of Manahan in continuing with the case, as shown by his nonappearance at the hearings set for April 14 and 15, 1982 in spite of due notice, materially weakened his case. The Solicitor General recommended dismissal of the complaint for disbarment, and the Court approved that recommendation.

Doctrine

A disbarment charge must rest on competent evidence. An affidavit whose affiant is not presented and cannot be cross-examined is hearsay and cannot sustain the charge. Communications made in the course of professional employment are privileged under Section 21(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, and an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. A complainant who fails to pursue his case with diligence, as shown by nonappearance at hearings despite due notice, weakens his own cause.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment against Ortega and Misa and considered the case closed.

Remember This

Remember that a disbarment complaint stands or falls on competent evidence, and hearsay and privileged communications will not do. Examiners like to use this case to test the rules on privileged communications under Section 21(b), Rule 130, and the effect of a complainant's failure to prosecute his administrative case.