MAXIMO DUMADAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA, RESPONDENT.

Dumadag versus Lumaya

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or discipline filed by Maximo Dumadag against Attorney Ernesto L. Lumaya, charging unethical practices, conflict of interest, and disloyalty to clients. It began as a complaint for disciplinary action and ended, many years later, in a ruling on whether the respondent's indefinite suspension should be lifted. The case matters because it teaches the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in disciplinary proceedings, and because it defines the nature of an indefinite suspension as a sanction whose key rests in the lawyer's own hands.

Procedural History

The administrative complaint, dated December 22, 1983, was referred by the Supreme Court to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation and report. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted its report on February 26, 1990, finding the respondent culpable for infidelity and disloyalty to his client, negligence of duty, unethical practices, and violation of his lawyer's oath, and recommending suspension from the practice of law for not less than five years. In a resolution dated May 21, 1991, the Supreme Court found a clear breach of the canons of professional responsibility and suspended the respondent indefinitely from the practice of law. His petition for reinvestigation and reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated January 13, 1992. The respondent then filed a petition for the lifting of his suspension, which the Court referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the lifting of the indefinite suspension, and the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted that recommendation. The matter thus came back to the Supreme Court, which retained the final say over the sanction.

Facts

Maximo Dumadag filed an administrative complaint against Attorney Ernesto L. Lumaya on December 22, 1983, praying that disciplinary action be imposed for unethical practices, conflict of interest, and disloyalty to clients. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General, which investigated and reported on February 26, 1990, finding the respondent culpable for infidelity and disloyalty to his client, negligence of duty, unethical practices, and violation of his lawyer's oath, and recommending suspension for not less than five years.

On May 21, 1991, the Supreme Court found a clear breach of the canons of professional responsibility and suspended the respondent indefinitely from the practice of law. His petition for reinvestigation and reconsideration was denied on January 13, 1992. Thereafter, the respondent wrote several letters and manifestations. He stressed that he was a not very healthy sixty-two year old who merely wanted to know how long he would stay suspended and whether he was disqualified from a notarial commission. He also invoked a public clamor in Baganga, Davao Oriental, where there was a lack of practicing lawyers and notaries public, and where many pending cases had been handled by him.

On July 26, 1994, the respondent filed a petition for the lifting of his suspension, which the Court referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the lifting of the indefinite suspension, and the Board of Governors adopted that recommendation. In a letter to the Chief Justice dated January 10, 2000, the respondent, then seventy-one years old, once again implored the Court and at the same time chided it for slumbering on the Integrated Bar resolution, even as he still insisted on his innocence.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court is bound by the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
• Whether or not the respondent's indefinite suspension should be lifted on the basis of the Integrated Bar's recommendation and his plea of public need.
• Whether or not the respondent's continued insistence on his innocence and his disrespectful language toward the Court affect his fitness for readmission to the practice of law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

How instituted. - Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

This provision establishes that disciplinary proceedings may originate with the Court itself or with the Integrated Bar, but it does not make the Integrated Bar's findings binding on the Court.

Section 14 of Rule 139-B provides:

Report of the Solicitor General or other Court designated Investigator. - Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations together with the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the final action of the Supreme Court.

This provision makes clear that the investigator's report is submitted for the final action of the Supreme Court, which retains the authority to decide.

Section 15 of Rule 139-B provides:

Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigators, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.

This provision confirms that a suspension lasts until the Supreme Court itself lifts it, and that the lifting is the Court's own act.

Section 16 of Rule 139-B provides:

Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice of any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

This provision shows that even suspensions imposed by lower courts remain subject to the further action of the Supreme Court.

Section 17 of Rule 139-B provides:

Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.

This provision vests in the Supreme Court the power to revoke, shorten, or extend a suspension, which is the very power the respondent asked it to exercise in his favor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it is neither bound by the findings of the Integrated Bar nor obliged to accept them as a matter of course, because as the Tribunal which has the final say on the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant members of the bench and bar, it has the prerogative of making its own findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the Integrated Bar, the Office of the Solicitor General, or any lower court to whom an administrative complaint has been referred. The Court anchored this on the text of the rule, which provides that the investigator shall submit his report and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.

On the second issue, the Court refused to lift the suspension. It stressed that the indefiniteness of the suspension, far from being cruel, degrading, or inhuman, has the effect of placing the key to the restoration of the respondent's rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands, giving him the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance, and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded from every member of the bar.

On the third issue, the Court found that the respondent's suspension for more than nine years, underscored by his insistent protestations of innocence, appeared not to have fully reformed him. Such an unrepentant attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge his misconduct put his fitness for readmission under serious inquiry. The Court also rebuked him for his insolence in chiding the Court for slumbering on its job. It reminded him that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and that adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar.

Doctrine

The Supreme Court is not bound by the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Solicitor General, or any lower court in disciplinary proceedings; it has the prerogative of making its own findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof, for the investigator's report is submitted for the final action of the Supreme Court. An indefinite suspension is a sanction that places the key to the restoration of the lawyer's rights and privileges in his own hands; it may be lifted only upon a showing of acknowledgment of misconduct, appropriate repentance, and a demonstrated willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and respect and fidelity to the Court are demanded of its members.

Disposition

The Court fixed the period of the respondent's suspension from the practice of law at ten years and denied his petition for the lifting of that suspension.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an indefinite suspension places the key to the lawyer's restoration in his own hands, but the Supreme Court alone decides when that key turns. Examiners like to use this case on the non-binding character of Integrated Bar recommendations and on the requisites for lifting a suspension from the practice of law.