Adm. Case No. 1769. June 08, 1992
CESAR L. LANTORIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IRINEO L. BUNYI, RESPONDENT.
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, seeking
disciplinary action against respondent Irineo L. Bunyi, a member of the
Philippine Bar, on the ground that respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of
“graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge and
bribery”, in connection with respondent’s handling of Civil Case Nos. 81,
83 and 88 then pending before the Municipal Court of Experanza, Agusan del Sur,
presided over by Municipal Judge Vicente Galicia[1]
in which respondent Bunyi was the counsel of one of the parties, namely, Mrs.
Constancia Mascarinas.
Respondent Bunyi alleged that Mrs. Constancia M. Mascarinas of
Manila was the owner of a farm located in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, and that
herein complainant Lantoria was the manager and supervisor of said farm,
receiving as such a monthly allowance. [2]
It appears that the complaint in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 sought to eject
the squatters from the aforementioned farm. [3]
These cases were assigned to the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur,
the acting municipal judge of which was the Honorable Vicente Galicia (who was
at the same time the regular judge of the municipal court of Bayugan, Agusan
del Sur). [4]The
defendants in the mentioned civil cases were, in due course, declared in
default.
In relation to the same three (3) civil cases, the records of the
present case show that complainant Lantoria wrote a letter to respondent Bunyi,
dated 23 April 1974, which reads as follows:
“Butuan City
23 April 1974
Atty. Ireneo Bunye
928 Rizal Avenue
Santa Cruz, Manila
Dear Atty. Bunye:
x x x x x x x
x x
Upon informing him of your willingness to prepare the corresponding
judgements (sic) on the 3 defaulted cases he said he has no objection in fact
he is happy and recommended that you mail the said decisions in due time thru
me to be delivered to him.
x x x x x x x
x x
I will communicate with you from time to time for any future
development.
My best regards to you and family and to Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas
and all.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) CESAR L. LANTORIA
Major Inf PC (ret)
Executive Director”[5]
On 01 June 1974, respondent Bunyi wrote to the complainant
regarding the said three (3) cases, in this wise:
“June 1, 1974
Dear Major Lantoria,
At last, I may say that I have tried my best to respond to the call
in your several letters received, which is about the preparation of the three
(3) Decisions awaited by Judge Galicia. The delay is that I have been too much occupied with my cases and other
professional commitments here in Manila and nearby provinces. Not only to Mrs. Mascarinas I would say that
I am so sorry but also to you. Mrs.
Mascarinas has been remindÂing me but I always find myself at a loss to preÂpare
these Decisions at an early date sa (sic) possible. So also with my calendar as to the dates for the next hearing of
the remaining cases over there.
Herewith now, you will find enclosed the three (3) Decisions
against the (3) defaulted defendants. I
am not sure if they will suit to satisfy Judge Galicia to sign them at
once. However, it is my request to
Judge Galicia, thru your kind mediation, that if the preparation of these
Decisions do not suit his consideration, then I am ready and willing to accept
his suggestions or correction to change or modify them for the better. And to this effect, kindly relay at once
what he is going to say or thinks if he signs them readily and please request
for each copy for our hold.
xxx xxx xxx
Please excuse this delay, and thanks for your kind assistance in
attending to our cases there. Regards
to you and family and prayer for your more vigor and success.
Brotherly yours,
(SGD.) IRINEO L. BUNYI” [6]
Counsel
It also appears that respondent Bunyi wrote an earlier letter to
complainant Lantoria, dated 04 March 1974, the contents of which read as follows:
“928 Rizal Ave., Sta. Cruz
Manila
March 4, 1974
Dear Major Lantoria,
This is an additional
request, strictly personal and confidential. Inside the envelope addressed to Judge Vicente C. Galicia, are the
Decisions and Orders, which he told me to prepare and he is going to sign them. If you please, deliver the envelope to him as if you have no
knowledge and information and that you have not opened it. Unless, of course, if the information comes
from him. But, you can inquire from him
if there is a need to wait from his words about them, or copies to be furnished
me, after he signs them, it could be made thru you personally, to expedite
receiving those copies for our hold. According to him, this envelope could be delivered to him at his
residence at No. 345 M. Calo St., Butuan City, during week end. Or, at Bayugan if you happen to go there, if
he is not in Butuan City.
Thanking you for your kind attention and favor.
Truly yours,
(SGD.) ATTY. I. L. BUNYI”
[7]
Three years after, that is, on 11 April 1977, complainant filed
with this Court the present adminisÂtrative case against respondent Bunyi,
predicated mainly on the above-quoted three (3) letters dated 04 March, 23
April and 01 June, 1974. Complainant
contends that respondent won the said three (3) cases because he (respondent)
was the one who unethically prepared the decisions rendered therein, and that
the preparation by respondent of said decisions warranted disciplinary action
against him.
By way of answer to the complaint, respondent, in a motion to
dismiss [8]the
administrative complaint, admitted the existence of the letter of 01 June 1974,
but explained the contents thereof as follows:
“x x x x x x x x x
b) In the second place, the
said letter of June 1, 1974, is self-explanatory and speaks for itself, that if
ever the same was written by the Respondent, it was due to the insistence of
the Complainant thru his several letters received, that the decisions in
question be drafted or prepared for Judge Galicia, who considered such
preparation as a big help to him, because he was at that time holding two (2)
salas – one as being the regular Municipal Judge of Bayugan, and the other, as
the acting Judge of Esperanza, both of Agusan del Sur, with many pending cases
and it was to the benefit of the Complainant that the early disposition of the
cases involved would not suffer inconsiderable delay. But, the intention to draft or prepare the decisions in question
was never spawned by the Respondent. Instead, it came from the underÂstanding between the Judge and the
complainant who from his several letters, had demonstrated so much interest to
eject at once the squatters from the farm he was entrusted to manage. Furthermore, the Complainant’s conclusion
that the said decisions were lutong macao is purely non-sense as it is
without any factual or legal basis. He
himself knew that Judge Galicia asked for help in the drafting of said
decisions as at any rate they were judgments by default, the defendants lost
their standing in court when they were declared in default for failure to file
their answers and to appear at the place and time set for hearing thereof (See first
paragraph, letter of June 1, 1974)
c) Thirdly, in the same
letter, the decisions as prepared were in the form of drafts, as in fact, the
letter mentioned – subject to suggestion or correction to change or modify for
the better by Judge Galicia (Second paragraph, Ibid);
d) Fourthly, in the same
letter, Responding (sic) even apologized for the delay in sending the same to
the Complainant and expressed his gratitude for his assistance in attending to
the cases involved (Last paragraph, Ibid.)”
In its resolution dated 28 November 1977, this Court referred the
case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.[9]
On 21 July 1980, the Solicitor General submitted his report to the Court, with
the following averments, to wit: 1)
that the case was set for hearing on April 12, September 29, and December 18,
1978, but in all said scheduled hearings only respondent Bunyi appeared; 2)
that in the hearing of 16 January 1979, both respondent and complainant
appeared; 3) that at the same hearing, the Solicitor General reported the following
development –
“Atty. Mercado submitted a letter of complainant dated January
16, 1979, sworn to before the investigating Solicitor, praying that the complaint
be considered withdrawn, dropped or dismissed on the ground that
complainant ‘could hardly substantiate’ his charges and that he is ‘no longer
interested to prosecute’ the same. For
his part, respondent manifested that he has no objection to the withdrawal of
the complaint against him. At the same
time, he presented complainant Lantoria as a witness and elicited testimony to
the effect that complainant no longer has in his possession the original of the
letters attached to his basic complaint, and hence, he was not prepared to
prove his charges.” [10]
(emphasis supplied)
In his aforesaid report, the Solicitor General found as
follows: a) that the letters of
respondent Bunyi (dated 4 March and 1 June 1974), addressed to complainant,
showed that respondent had indeed prepared the draft of the decisions in Civil
Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 of the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur,
which he submitted to Judge Vicente Galicia thru the complainant; b) that those
letters indicated that respondent had previous communiÂcations with Judge
Galicia regarding the preparation of the decisions; c) that the testimony of
complainant to the effect that he had lost the original of said letters, and
complainant’s withdrawal of the complaint in the case at bar are of no moment,
as respondent Bunyi, in his motion to dismiss filed with the Supreme Court,
admitted that he prepared the draft of the decisions in the said civil cases,
and he affirmed the existence of the letters.
Hence, in his report, the Solicitor General found that respondent
is guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional conduct for failure to perform
his duty, as an officer of the court, to help promote the independence of the
judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence judicial
determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. [11]The
Solicitor General recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year. He
filed with the Court the corresponding complaint against respondent.
In his answer[12]to
the complaint filed by the Solicitor General, respondent manifested that in the
future he would be more careful in observing his duties as a lawyer, and in
upholding the provisions of the canons of professional ethics.
On 10 December 1980, the date set by this Court for the hearing
of this case, the hearing was postponed until further notice. On 9 March 1981, respondent filed a
manifestation[13]alleging
that no hearing was as yet set in the case since the last setting on 10
December 1980, and he requested that the next hearing be not set until after
six (6) months when he expected to return from the United States of America
where he would visit his children and at the same time have a medical check-up.
On 28 October 1981, the date set by this Court for hearing in
this case, respondent Bunyi and the Solicitor General appeared, and respondent
was directed to submit his memorandum. Respondent Bunyi filed his memorandum on 16 November 1981. In said memorandum,[14]
respondent submitted that although he prepared the draft of the decisions in
the civil cases, he did not offer Judge Galicia any gift or consideration to
influence the Judge in allowing him to prepare the draft decisions.[15]
He also offered his apology to the Court for all the improprieties which may
have resulted from his preparation of the draft decisions.
We agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the
determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed notwithstanding
complainant’s withdrawal of his complaint in the case, the respondent himself
having admitted that the letters in question truly exist, and that he even
asked for an apology from the Court, for whatever effects such letters may have
had on his duty as a lawyer.
With the admission by respondent of the existence of the letters
upon which the present administrative complaint is based, the remaining issue
to be resolved is the effect of the acts complained of on respondent’s duty
both as a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
We find merit in the recommendation of the Solicitor General that
respondent, by way of disciplinary action, deserves suspension from the
practice of law.
The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous
communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft
decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact
prepared. Although nothing in the
records would show that respondent got the trial court judge’s consent to the
said preparation, for a favor or consideration, the acts of respondent
nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the
Court.
Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics (which were enforced at the time respondent committed the
acts admitted by him), which provides as follows:
“3. Attempts to exert
personal influence on the court
Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to
a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both
the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be
avoided. A lawyer should not communicate
or argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and
deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge
special personal considerÂation or favor. A self-respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty,
without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the judge’s
station, is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official
relations between bench and bar.”
In the new Code of Professional Responsibility[16]
a lawyer’s attempt to influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13
and Rule 13.01, which read:
“CANON 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court.
Rule 13.01 – A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with
judges.”
Therefore, this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical
practice in attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case.[17]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from the date
of notice hereof. Let this decision be
entered in the bar records of the respondent and the Court Administrator is
directed to inform the different courts of this suspension.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Regalado, JJ., concur.
Nocon, J., on leave.
[1]
Rollo, p. 28
[2]
Rollo, p. 97
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Rollo, p. 5
[6]
Id., p. 6
[7]
Ibid., p. 7
[8]
Rollo, p. 36
[9]
Ibid, p. 47
[10]
Id., p. 58
[11]
Rollo, p. 63
[12]
Ibid, pp. 85 and 86
[13]
Id., p. 89.
[14]
Rollo, pp. 99 and 100
[15]
Respondent alleged that at the time complainant filed his complaint in the case
at bar, Judge Galicia was already dead, and was followed by the death of Mrs.
Mascarinas. (Rollo, p. 98)
[16]
promulgated by the Supreme Court on 21 June 1988
[17]
In the case of Artiaga, Jr. vs. Villanueva (163 SCRA 638, July 29,
1988), Atty. Enrique C. Villanueva was found guilty of three (3) unethical
practices, namely: (1) causing his client to perjure himself; (2) lack of
candor and respect toward his adversary and the courts; and (3) abuse of the
right of recourse to the courts. He was
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.