SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, RESPONDENT.

Williams versus Enriquez

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by the spouses David Williams and Marisa Williams against Attorney Rudy Enriquez, the lawyer who was counsel of record for the plaintiffs in a pending civil case in which the spouses were the defendants. The spouses charged him with unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney. The heart of the charge is that, in a criminal complaint for falsification he filed against Marisa Williams, the respondent relied on outdated law to argue that she automatically lost her Filipino citizenship upon marrying an American, when the Constitution says the opposite. The case matters because it fixes the duty of every lawyer, and especially of a retired judge, to keep abreast of legal developments, and it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty for gross ignorance of the law.

Procedural History

The spouses filed a joint complaint-affidavit for disbarment against the respondent. The respondent answered through comments by way of motion to dismiss, insisting that the complaint was a mere tactic to divert attention from the criminal charges against the complainants and that the charges against him had no factual basis. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and the Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled it for mandatory conference and hearing. Only the respondent appeared, and the parties were directed to submit verified position papers. The Investigating Commissioner ruled that the respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended suspension for six months. The Commission on Bar Discipline adopted that recommendation but modified the penalty to a reprimand, with a warning and advice to study every opinion he may give his clients. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy, and a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in her favor stating that she is Filipino, married to David Williams, an American citizen. The respondent was the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in a civil case pending before the Regional Trial Court in Dumaguete City, in which the spouses Williams were the defendants.

On January 8, 2004, the respondent charged Marisa Williams with falsification of public documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City. In his complaint-affidavit and in his comments to her counter-affidavit, he cited outdated material and applied it to argue that Marisa automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, making her guilty of falsification in the deed she executed to buy property.

Marisa countered by citing the provision of the 1987 Constitution stating that she would not lose her citizenship upon marrying an American unless she renounced it in a specific act. In reply, the respondent quoted more outdated law, declaring that her act of marrying her husband was equivalent to renouncing her citizenship, and he attempted to show that the 1987 Constitution supported his position. The complainants stressed that the respondent is a retired judge who knew that the false charge would not prevail in the end.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for citing outdated law and misapplying it to the prejudice of the complainants.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the proper penalty under the circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Article Four of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

This is the provision the respondent misconstrued, since it preserves citizenship upon marriage to an alien and requires a renunciatory act or omission before citizenship is lost.

Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

This is the standard the respondent violated, because it obliges every lawyer to remain current in the law and jurisprudence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed that the respondent is administratively liable. The Investigating Commissioner found no evidence that Marisa had renounced her Filipino citizenship, except her certificate of marriage, which does not show that she automatically acquired her husband's citizenship upon marriage, and the cases the respondent cited were not applicable because they referred to aliens acquiring lands in the Philippines. The Court held that lawyers must keep themselves abreast of legal developments, must walk with the dynamic movements of the law and jurisprudence, and that the lawyer's life is one of continuous and laborious study. It stressed that when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge, the respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well informed of the latest rulings of the Court, and here the law he misconstrued is no less than the Constitution, the most basic law of the land. The Court added that implicit in a lawyer's mandate to protect a client's interest with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments and to participate in continuing legal education programs, and that ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws.

On the second issue, the Court found the recommended penalty of the Investigating Commissioner too harsh. It stressed that the power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution, and that only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed. Pursuant to the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and considering that this is the respondent's first infraction, the Court found that the penalty of reprimand as recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline would suffice. The Court also declined to rule on the arguments the parties repeatedly invoked from their pending cases below, as those have yet to be determined on the merits in the courts a quo.

Doctrine

• Under Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to keep abreast of legal developments and to participate in continuing legal education programs; the lawyer's life is one of continuous and laborious study.
• When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law, and ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws.
• Under Section 4 of Article Four of the 1987 Constitution, a Filipino who marries an alien retains citizenship unless by act or omission he or she is deemed under the law to have renounced it; marriage alone does not work a renunciation.
• The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar; the absence of a prior disciplinary record is a mitigating factor.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Rudy Enriquez guilty of gross ignorance of the law, reprimanded him, advised him to carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients, and sternly warned him that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law, and that a lawyer's life is one of continuous and laborious study. Examiners use this case to test Canon 5 and the duty of competence, and to test the rule that disbarment or suspension is imposed only with great caution, with reprimand sufficing for a first infraction.