A.C. No. 2018. December 10, 1982
UY CHUNG SENG AND CHING UY SENG, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOSE C. MAGAT, RESPONDENT.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
On March 27, 1979,
Uy Chung Guan Seng and Ching Uy Seng
filed a verified Complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat alleging that the following circumstances warranted
his exclusion from the Roll of Attorneys:
“On 22 August 1977 (should be 11 August 1977), C o m p l a i n a n t CHING UY SENG a ROBERT CHING received a letter
from Respondent Atty. JOSE C. MAGAT, threatening to report him to the
government authorities if he would not get in touch with him (MAGAT) and his
clients with respect to a bunch of documents and papers pertaining to
Complainants’ business. Such documents
turned out to be a part of the articles which were stolen from the office/residence
of Complainants on 2 June 1977. In the morning of 13 August 1977, UY CHUNG GUAN SENG a HENTRY
CHING; his lawyer, Atty. ELISEO LEGASPI; and NBI Agent RODOLFO DAHIROC went to
the office of Atty. MAGAT at Room 512 Madrigal Bldg., Escolta,
Manila, in response to the
above-mentioned letter. Atty. MAGAT
initially demanded the sum of P500,000.00 in exchange for the robbed
documents. CHING, LEGASPI and Agent
DAHIROC insisted on seeing the documents first and to talk with Atty. MAGAT’s clients before they negotiate the terms of the
return of the documents. The meeting was
reset on 15 August 1977 at 3:00 p.m., during which Atty. MAGAT informed them
that their demand was reduced to P300,000.00 on a ‘take it or leave it’
basis. Atty. MAGAT’s
‘clients’ who brought in the robbed documents turned out to be the suspects in
the robbery of the office/residence of Complainants on 2 June 1977.
Atty. MAGAT insisted that HENRY CHING produce P30,000.00 to show his
good faith in pushing through with the negotiation. It was at this juncture that the NBI Agents
confronted the group and brought them to the NBI office together with the
robbed documents for investigation.”[1]
Required to comment, respondent alleged that there was absolutely
no truth to the charge imputed to him; that the incident became the subject of
a criminal charge for Light Threats filed by the NBI Agents with the Office of
the Fiscal of Manila (IS No. 77-26882), which, after preliminary investigation,
was dropped for “utter insufficiency of evidence”; and that after the
lapse of more than one year from the date of said criminal complaint,
complainants through Atty. Eliseo Legaspi,
reopened the case before this Tribunal merely to harass him and assail his
character and conduct. Respondent prayed
that the complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
On June 5, 1979,
upon consideration of the Complaint and the Comment, this Court resolved to
suspend respondent from the practice of law effective immediately upon notice,
and until further orders. The Court
further resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for investigation.
On September 24, 1979,
the Solicitor General[2]
submitted his Report and Recommendation, quoted in full hereunder:
“REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
COME NOW the undersigned counsel and after investigation of the
complaint in the above-entitled case pursuant to the Resolution dated June 5, 1979, notice of which was
received by the Office of the Solicitor General on June 11,1979, respectfully submit this Report and
Recommendation.
1. This case stemmed from a letter dated August 11, 1977 sent by respondent
Atty. Jose C. Magat to Mr. Robert Ching,
one of the complainants herein, which reads as follows:
J.C. Magat Law Office
R-512 Madrigal
Building
Escolta, Manila
Tel. No. 48-23-01
PERSONAL DELIVERY
August
11, 1977
Mr. Robert Ching
528 San Fernando,
or 107 Renta St.
Binondo, Manila
Dear Mr. Ching:
Mr. Felicisimo Cruz and his companions
came to this office with bunch of documents and papers and statements of
accounts pertaining to the business transactions of the A-1 Photo Litho and
Photo Engraving. Their intention was for
me to first get in touch with you about the disposition of the same or go
direct to the government office to examine the said documents with original
invoices and triplicates thereof showing discrepancies in amounts.
I do not know whether you will be interested. If you are interested, you may get in touch
with me in my office possibly in the afternoon of any day except Sunday and
Saturday, altho I am here on Saturdays up to 1:00 p.m.
If I do not hear from you upon receipt of this letter either today
or tomorrow, I will consider your silence as indifference and that I can
proceed to do what I believe is proper.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) JOSE C. MAGAT
JCM/
P.S. Enclosed is a
sample of transactions of your company indicating the actual amount paid on
the original invoice and the amount shown on the triplicate thereof and
likewise the amount not reported in your statement of account.
(In.) JCM
(Exh.
‘C’, p. 27, Records).
The letter was personally delivered by respondent’s secretary to
complainant Uy Chung Guan Seng,
brother of complainant Robert Ching (pp. 243, 246, t.s.n., July 23,
1979). Enclosed with the
letter was a columnar sheet containing a list of invoices indicating the
amount actually paid, as shown in the original invoice, and the amount
reflected in the triplicate thereof (Exh. C-1, p. 28,
Record; p. 246, t.s.n., id.).
2. On August
11, 1977, the letter was referred to Atty. Eliseo
P. Legaspi. In
the afternoon of that sane day, Atty. Legaspi and Uy Chung Guan Seng went to the
office of respondent Magat at Rm. 512 Madrigal Bldg.,
Escolta, Manila,but Atty. Magat was not
there. However, they met Atty. Magat on the Escolta sidewalk in
front of the Lyric Theater. Atty. Legaspi and Atty. Magat conferred
about the letter and the latter told the former that he will communicate with
his client. Atty. Magat
also told Atty. Legaspi to come back on August 13
(pp. 94-98, t.s.n., July 9, 1979).
3. In view of the development, Atty. Legaspi wrote on August 12, 1977 a letter to the Director
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI for short) seeking assistance ‘by
way of assigning one of your Agents in my planned conference with Atty. Magat tomorrow’ (Exh. D, p. 29,
Records; pp. 28-29, id.). Conformably
with the request, the NBI assigned Agent Rodolfo Dahiroc
to assist Atty. Legaspi (p. 32, t.s.n.,
id.).
4. On August 13, 1977, Atty. Legaspi,
Agent Dahiroc, and complainant Uy
Chung Guan Seng, also known as Henry Ching, went to the office of Atty. Magat
at Rm. 512 Madrigal Building to negotiate about the contents of the letter Exhibit
‘C’, but the group of Felicisimo Cruz mentioned in
the letter did not arrive. Atty. Magat asked Atty. Legaspi who
Agent Dahiroc was, he being then dressed in
T-shirt. Atty. Legaspi
introduced Agent Dahiroc as his assistant (p.
102,t.s.n., July 9, 1979). Atty. Magat told Atty.Legaspi to return
on August 15 (p. 35, t.s.n., July 6, 1979).
5. On August
15, 1977, Atty. Legaspi accompanied by
Agent Dahiroc and Henry Ching,
again went to the office of Atty. Magat. Upon reaching the place, Atty. Magat told the trio that the group of Felicisimo
Cruz will arrive at 5:00 o’clock that
afternoon. While waiting for the group
of Felicisimo Cruz to arrive, conversation ensued,
during which Atty. Magat demanded P500,000.00 for the
return of the documents mentioned in the letter. This amount was reduced to P300,000.00, with
the request, however, that an advance payment of P30,000.00 be made to show
good faith; upon paying the balance, all the documents will be returned (pp.
35-37, id.; pp.260-261, t.s.n., July 23, 1979). Shortly thereafter Felicisimo
Cruz and his group arrived, bringing along with them two sacks of invoices and
papers and the black portfolio of Uy Chung Guan Seng. Atty. Magat showed Uy Chung Guan Seng the folder or plastic bag containing papers and the
portfolio to verify whether those were really their papers (pp. 37-38, t.s.n.,July 6, 1979).
It turned out that the person introduced as Felicisimo
Cruz is Rodolfo Salita, the driver of complainant
Robert Ching, who absconded with P40,000.00 owned by
Robert Ching on December 3, 1976 (p. 39, id.), and who had sent a letter
to Uy Chung Guan Seng on July 1, 1977 (Exhs.
L and L-1) admitting participation in the robbery committed at the latter’s
office on June 2, 1977 in which papers and documents pertaining to their
business, among other things, were taken.
Rodolfo Salita’s companions were Jesus Salita and his brother-in-law Robert Rajotte
(pp. 39-40, id.).
6. When the group of Rodolfo Salita,
alias Felicisimo Cruz, arrived with the documents subject
of the negotiation, and after verification of sample documents, Atty. Legaspi communicated secretly with Agent Dahiroc to get reinforcements and then in a loud voice
ordered Dahiroc and Uy
Chung Guan Seng to get the P30,000.00 being demanded
by Atty. Magat as earnest-money (p. 40, id.; p. 135, t.s.n., July 9, 1979).
Whereupon Uy Chung Guan Seng
and Agent Dahiroc left Atty. Magat’s
office and went downstairs. Uy Chung Guan Seng proceeded to
the Insular Bank of America
in Dasmariñas, pretending to get the money there,
while Agent Dahiroc went to get reinforcements (p.
40, t.s.n., July 6, 1979; pp. 262-264, t.s.n., July 23, 1979).
After a few minutes, Agent Dahiroc and the
reinforcements arrived and they placed Rodolfo Salita,
Jesus Salita, Robert Rajotte
and a certain Rogelio Villagracia under arrest; they
also seized the articles and documents brought by Rodolfo Salita
and his group (p. 41-42, t.s.n., July 6, 1979; p.
357, t.s.n., July 25, 1979; pp. 383-384, t.s.n., July 27, 1979).
Agent Dahiroc, after introducing himself as an
NBI agent, apprised Atty. Magat that the documents
seized were the subject of a robbery case and that from the tenor of the
letter, Exhibit ‘C’, there was a case of extortion against respondent (pp.
358-359, t.s.n., July 25, 1979).
Agent Dahiroc then invited Atty. Magat to go to the NBI for investigation (p. 359-361,
id.). Atty. Magat
pleaded that as a brother in the profession, he wanted to talk with him ‘on a
personal level’, so he invited Agent Dahiroc to go
with him to the Kentucky Cocktail Lounge which was near his office. Agent Dahiroc
acceded because the other persons arrested were already in the custody of the
other NBI agents. At the Kentucky Cocktail
Lounge, Atty. Magat told Agent Dahiroc
that if the latter wanted to, they can make some money. Agent Dahiroc
answered that there was no money in the documents because they had been brought
to the attention of the government and that there was a complaint for
robbery. Agent Dahiroc
further told Atty. Magat that there was no way for
them ‘to have a happy agreement’, so the former brought the latter back to the
office (pp. 362-363, t.s.n., July 25, 1979; pp. 386-387, t.s.n.,
July 27, 1979). At the office, Atty. Magat
insisted on his right not to go to the NBI, so Agent Dahiroc
called up the NBI Regional Director and informed him of the unwillingness of
Atty. Magat to go with the group to the NBI. As a compromise, Atty. Magat
was allowed to remain after he had prepared and signed a written undertaking
that he would report to the NBI office the following day for questioning regarding
the matter (Exh. Q, p. 37, Records; pp. 364-366, t.s.n., July 25,
1979). Contrary to his
written promise, Atty. Magat did not report to the
NBI Office (p. 367, id.).
Agent Dahiroc prepared an inventory of
all the articles and documents seized during the raid at the office of Atty. Magat (Exh. S); NBI photographers
took pictures of the office of respondent where the raid took place, as well
as of the persons arrested and the articles seized (Exhs.
F, G, H, I, J, and K; pp. 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 73, Records). On August
19, 1977, Agents Rodolfo Dahiroc and Leopoldo Cotaco submitted their
written report on the incident in question (Exh. R,
pp. 7-14, Records; pp. 367-371, id.).
7. In the course of their conversation during
one of his meetings with Agent Dahiroc and Atty. Legaspi, respondent Magat told
the duo that as counsel for Felicisimo and his group
in the transaction, his share would be one-third (1/3) of the amount which they
would receive from the complainants (pp. 402-404, t.s.n.,
July 27, 1979).
8. Respondent Atty. Magat
admits that he wrote and sent the letter, Exhibit ‘C’, to complainant Robert Ching but he claims that he prepared the same at the
request of Felicisimo Cruz after being shown sales
invoices of A-1 Photo Litho, a firm managed by Robert Ching,
and after noticing discrepancies in the amounts appearing in the originals and
in the duplicates of said invoices (pp. 7-8, t.s.n.,
July 30, 1979). He also admits that on August 13, 1977, he showed Atty. Legaspi the sample of the sales invoice of the A-1 Photo
Litho containing the anomalous discrepancies aforementioned (p. 13,id.). He, however, denies that he demanded the
amounts mentioned by the witnesses for the complainants because what he did was
merely to convey the demands of his clients (pp. 18-23, id.).
9. The actuations of respondent Atty. Magat constitute malpractice and gross misconduct. Writing and sending the letter Exhibit C and
demanding from the complainants the amount of P500,000.00, later on reduced to
P300,000.00, with P30,000.00 as down-payment to show good faith, in consideration
for the return of anomalous invoices and documents, is highly
reprehensible. Such acts constitute not
only threat but extortion. Respondent’s
protestations of good faith in sending the letter to the complainants are not
convincing. If indeed he had no ulterior
motive, he should have referred the documents brought by Salita
and his companions directly to the BIR instead of addressing a letter with a
veiled threat to the complainants and having the letter delivered personally
to them.
Even assuming as true the allegation of respondent that he did not
actually demand the amounts mentioned above for himself but that he merely conveyed
the demands made by the group of Felicisimo Cruz,
such act is still violative of an attorney’s
oath. For then, respondent assisted his
clients in a scheme which he knows to be dishonest. He knew that the documents presented by Felicisimo Cruz to him are proof that the government has
been unlawfully deprived of much needed taxes.
As testified to by him, respondent, after verifying the invoices, was
convinced that the A-1 Litho and and Photo Engraving
was cheating the government (pp. 83-84, id.).
He knew too that the desire of Cruz and his group to extort money from
the complainants in exchange for the anomalous documents was illegal. Despite such knowledge and awareness, he
connived with his clients in violating the law.
And for what? It is in
consideration of the one-third share he would receive from the proceeds of the
transaction. The assistance he extended
to his clients’ dishonest scheme and his connivance with them in violating the
law render the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct which warrants his
disbarment or suspension.
The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects,
for the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such
misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to
malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed
or suspended (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21). The assisting of a client in a scheme
which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of
law, are acts which justify disbarment.
(In Re Terrel, 2 Phil. 266, 267-268;
Underlining supplied).
10. The grounds for
disbarment or suspension enumerated in the statute should not be taken as a
limitation of the general power of the courts to disbar or suspend a
lawyer. For the power of the court over
its officers cannot be restricted. A
lawyer may be removed not only for malpractice or dishonesty in his profession
but also for his gross misconduct which shows him to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which the law confers upon him (In Re Puno, 19 SCRA 439).
It has been repeatedly ruled that the purpose of disbarment is to
protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and
to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise
this important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in
whom courts and clients may repose confidence (Santos vs. Dichosa,
84 SCRA 622). In the case at bar,
respondent has not exercised honesty and trustworthiness and has failed to
live up to the high standards of the law profession. It is the duty of a member of the bar to
avoid all appearances of impropriety and his actuations should be beyond suspicion.
It is true that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence
until the contrary is proved, but this presumption has been rebutted by the
clear and convincing evidence presented by the complainants and their
witnesses.
The actuations of respondent constitute attempted extortion
although what was filed against him in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila
was only for light threats. Of course,
respondent was able to show that the charge for light threats lodged against
him was dismissed, as shown by the memorandum of Assistant Fiscal Billy M. Apalit and the memorandum of 2nd Assistant City Fiscal Artemio M. Cusi recommending the
dismissal of the charge of light threats filed against him (Exh.
2, 2-A, 2-B & 3, pp. 81-84, Rec.).
But the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondent does not
preclude his disbarment. Even granting
that the acts committed by him may not be sufficient to make him criminally
liable, the same nevertheless constitute gross misconduct and/or malpractice,
which are grounds for disbarment.
Moreover, the purpose of disbarment, as stated above, is not to punish
the offender but to protect the courts and the public from his pernicious
activities.
It is not amiss to mention at this juncture that respondent is facing
two other administrative cases before this Honorable Court, filed by his own
cousins, one involving an affidavit notarized by him and the other an answer
to a complaint prepared and filed by him in a certain case (t.s.n.,
pp. 77-78, July 30, 1979).
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully
recommended that the respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat
be disbarred.
In line with this recommendation, the undersigned counsel are
filing together with this Report and Recommendation the corresponding
complaint.
Manila, September 19, 1979.”[3]
The Complaint filed by the Solicitor General also prays that
respondent be disbarred, that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys;
and that his certificate of admission to the bar be recalled.
In his Answer to the Complaint, respondent reiterated the
contentions in his Comment and added that his “sole defense” is
anchored on the letter he wrote to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on
August 12, 1977, attached to his Answer as Annex “2-A”, which reads:
“J. C. MAGAT
LAW OFFICE
R-512 Madrigal
Building
Escolta,Manila
Tel. No. 48-23-01
CONFIDENTIAL August 12, 1977
The Honorable Commissioner
Bureau of Internal Revenue
Quezon
City
S i r :
On August 10, 1977, a certain Mr. Felicisimo
Cruz came to my office and brought to my attention several books of accounts
and invoices reflecting anomalies committed by the owner thereof, the A-1 Litho
Photo and Litho Engraving company with offices at 528 San Fernando, Binondo, Manila.
I have no control of the documents, however, because they are
always with the said Mr. Cruz and he told me that he stole all those documents
from the company because he was allegedly dismissed illegally.
I have written the head of the company to have a meeting with the
said Mr. Cruz in my office if he wants to see those documents again. In the meantime, knowing that the meeting
will not immediately take place, I have written to your office with a view to
examining the documents if they are again brought into my office by Mr. Cruz.
I am not sure you will be interested but if your office would be,
you may send one of your men in my office until the meeting goes through.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) JOSE C.
MAGAT”[4]
Likewise attached to respondent’s Answer to the Complaint as Annex
“2” is the reply of the BIR Atty. Magat’s
request that said office furnish him with a copy of his original letter. The reply reads:
“October 25, 1979
Atty. Jose C. Magat
R-512 Madrigal
Building
Escolta, Manila
S i r :
Upon your request, as per your letter to this Office dated October 19, 1979, which was received
by the Office of the Commissioner on October
22, 1979, enclosed is a xerox copy of
your original letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated August 12, 1977. The original letter is on file with the
docket of the tax investigation report on A-1 Litho Photo and Litho Engraving
Co. submitted by Special Agents of the Tax Fraud Division.
The said letter was received by the Records Division, BIR, Quezon City on September 6, 1977, and this was
transmitted to the Tax Fraud Division, BIR, on September 7, 1977.
The Post mark of the Manila Central Post Office on the envelope which
contained said letter, bears the date August
16, 1977 p.m.
Very truly yours,
EFREN I.
PLANA
Acting Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
By:
REYNALDO A. SUAREZ
Chief, Tax Fraud
Division
TAN
1549-655-7″[5]
On October 21, 1982,
the case was set for hearing during which respondent appeared on his own
behalf. Thereafter the Court resolved to
consider the case submitted for resolution.
Upon the oral and documentary evidence, we find the charges
substantiated and the Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor General
thorough and well founded.
Although respondent’s confidential letter to the BIR is dated
August 12, 1977, or ostensibly a day after respondent’s letter to Robert Ching, and prior to the raid on respondent’s office on
August 15, 1977, the BIR letter of October 25, 1979, supra, specifically
stated “the Post mark of the Manila Central Post Office of the envelope
which contained said letter, bears the date August 16, 1977 p.m.”. Evidently, respondent’s letter was mailed the
day after the raid on August 15, 1977
as an afterthought designed to stave off impending liability. His defense at the hearing that the Post
Office was delayed in stamping the letter is puerile. The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions (Rule 131, Sec. 5 [m]) has not been
overcome. Besides, if respondent were
really motivated by the desire to expose tax anomalies, he could have written
the BIR directly. There was no need to
have written his letter (Exhibit “C”) to Robert Ching.
The dismissal of the criminal complaint for Light Threats against
respondent by the City Fiscal’s Office (Exhibits
“2”, “2-A”, “2-B” and “3”, pp. 81-84,
Record) will not preclude the fact that respondent has not exhibited honesty
nor shown trustworthiness in the discharge of his duties as a member of the
Bar. The dismissal of the criminal
complaint does not exonerate him of professional misconduct.
The proper disciplinary action against respondent is disbarment
for malpractice and gross misconduct. He
has shown himself unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which the
law confers upon him.[6]
“The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney
knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which
justify disbarment. (In Re Terrel, 2 Phil. 266, 267-268).”
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat
is hereby disbarred; his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys;
and his Certificate of Admission to the Bar is hereby recalled.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Acting C.J.), Makasiar, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., on
leave.
Aquino and Plana,
JJ., no part.
De Castro, J., reserves his
vote.
[1]
pp. 4-5, Rollo.
[2]
He was assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Lorenzo G. Timbol
and Solicitor Jesus O. Ibay.
[3] pp.
90-100, Rollo.
[4]
p. 113, ibid.
[5]
p. 112, ibid.
[6]
In Re Puno, 19 SCRA 439 (1967); In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 568 (1923).