PARALUMAN B. AFURONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANGEL G. AQUINO, RESPONDENT.

Afurong versus Aquino

The Case

This is a disbarment proceeding. Paraluman B. Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint against Atty. Angel G. Aquino, charging him with filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final judgment, with committing falsehood in an urgent motion for postponement, and with misrepresenting himself as an attorney of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office after he had already been separated from that office. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the three core duties of the lawyer as an officer of the court: to bring only just causes, to keep the truth from being concealed, and never to mislead the judge by any false statement of fact or law.

Procedural History

The case began not in a court but in the Supreme Court itself, through a verified letter-complaint for disbarment filed on December 22, 1975. The respondent answered on February 13, 1976, denying malice. On May 3, 1976, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation, but the parties agreed to hold the case in abeyance until the termination of the civil case. Effective June 1, 1988, all cases pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General were transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. On May 22, 1997, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its report, finding that the respondent failed to perform his duties as an attorney and recommending a penalty of six months suspension. On July 26, 1997, the Board of Governors adopted and approved that report and recommendation. The case then returned to the Supreme Court, which rendered its own decision on the administrative complaint.

Facts

On April 2, 1974, Paraluman Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment with the City Court of Manila against Victorino Flores for non-payment of rentals. The court rendered judgment in her favor on May 27, 1974, and issued a writ of execution on February 17, 1975, which was served on Flores in March 1975.

Facing eviction, Flores sought the assistance of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, and his case was assigned to Atty. Angel G. Aquino, then an employee of that office. On April 3, 1975, the respondent filed a petition for relief from judgment with prayer for a restraining order, which was dismissed on May 9, 1975 for having been filed out of time. He then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, where pre-trial was set on December 12, 1975.

Although he had been separated from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office on October 1, 1975, the respondent filed on December 11, 1975 an urgent motion for postponement, signing as counsel for Flores and using the office address of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. In that motion he claimed he could not attend the pre-trial because he had to attend a habeas corpus hearing before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court at the same date and hour. A certification from the Clerk of Court showed that no such hearing took place, the proceedings having been closed and terminated. The respondent admitted he inserted the statement to give more force to his motion, and that he was no longer connected with the office, having been purged from employment. The lower court had also declared him in contempt for the false allegations.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Aquino should be held liable for filing frivolous actions that delayed the execution of a final and valid judgment.
• Whether or not Atty. Aquino committed falsehood in his urgent motion for postponement by alleging a hearing that did not exist.
• Whether or not Atty. Aquino misrepresented himself as an attorney of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office after his separation from that office.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20, paragraph c, of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

It is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

This is the provision breached by the filing of the petition for certiorari after the ejectment judgment had already become final and was being executed.

Section 20, paragraph d, of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

This is the provision breached both by the false claim of a conflicting hearing and by the pretence of continued employment with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.

Section 3, paragraph d, of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, on contempt, provides:

Any person guilty of the following acts shall be punished for indirect contempt: Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

The Court cites this to note that the lower court correctly declared the respondent in contempt for the same false allegations.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent should not have filed the petition for certiorari, because the decision in the ejectment case had reached finality and execution was already being effected, and there was no apparent purpose for the petition other than to delay the execution of a valid judgment. This violated his duty to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent committed falsehood when he stated in his urgent motion that he had to attend a hearing in a special proceedings case on the same day as the pre-trial. He himself admitted that he included the statement only to give more force to his motion. Such an act violates the Canons of Professional Ethics, which oblige an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from it. That he was awaiting reinstatement did not remove the fact that he was misrepresenting himself to the court. He could have delegated the case to another lawyer in the same office. By his act, he violated his duty to employ only means consistent with truth and honor and never to mislead the judge by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

Doctrine

A lawyer may counsel or maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. Filing a petition after judgment has become final, with no apparent purpose but to delay execution, is a breach of this duty.

A lawyer must employ only means consistent with truth and honor, and must never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. False allegations in a motion for postponement, made to give the motion more force, constitute falsehood and violate the Canons of Professional Ethics.

A lawyer who has been separated from the office that originally handled a case may not continue to sign pleadings as its attorney or use its address, for that is a misrepresentation to the court. He should instead delegate the case to another lawyer in the same office.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of malpractice and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, with the decision spread in his personal record and copies furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Remember This

A lawyer's license is held in trust for the court and the public, and falsehood in a pleading, even to give a motion more force, is malpractice. Examiners use this case to test the duties under Section 20 of Rule 138, particularly the prohibition against misleading the court and the duty to file only just actions.