OCA CIRCULAR NO. 173-2003, December 02, 2003

For information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the
Decision of the Court En Bane dated July 1, 2003 in Administrative, Case No.
5J48 entitled Atfy. Ramon P. Reyes vs. Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong, Jr.

“Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The
bickering, and the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct
and rapport with each other as professionals and members of the bar.

The Case

Before us is a Sworn Complaint^[1] filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the
Office of the Bar Cohfidant of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty.
Victoriano T. Chiong, Jr. for violation of his lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court
referred the case to Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline resolved to suspend him as follows:

“x x x'[Considering that respondent is bound by his oath which
binds him to the obligation that he will not wittingly or wiiHngly promote or
sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer shall conduct-himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
hisprofessional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No.
4884, when it was apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, respondent
violated his oath of office as well as the above-quoted Canon of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for two (2) years.” ^[2]

The Facts

In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January
1998, his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu,^[3] a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture
that went awry. Xu invested P300,0GG on a Cebu-based fishball? tempura and
seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another
Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered
that the latter had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his
money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to seek legal
assistance.

Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa
against Pan, who was represented by respondent. The Complaint, docketed as IS
98J-51990, was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga,
who then issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on
October 27 and 29, 1998. The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled
hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a
” Criminal Complaint^[4] for estafa
against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila^[5] . On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued
a Warrant of Arrest^[6] against Pan.

Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the
Warrant of Arrest^[7] . He also filed with
the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money
and damages as well as for the dissolution of a bigness venture against
complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.

When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that it
was Pan who had decided to institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes.
Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if
complainant would move for the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two
lawyers failed to reach a settlement.

In his Comment^[8] dated
January 27, 2000, respondent argued that he had shown no disrespect in
impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884. He claimed that
there was no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it had
been instituted only to exact vengeance. He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was
impeded as an additional defendant because of the irregulanties the latter had
committed inconducting the criminal mvestigation. Specially, Prosecutor Salanga
had resolved to file the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan’s Motion for an
Opportunity to Submit County Affidavits andEvidence^[9], of the appeal^[10] to the justice secretary, and ol the
Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings. ^[11]

On the other hand, complainant was impleaded, because he
allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing the estafa case, which the
former knew folly well was baseless. According to respondent, the irregularities
committed by Prosecutor Salanga in the criminal investigation and complainant’s
connivance therein were discovered only after the institution of the collection
suit.

The Third Division of this Court referred the case to the IBP
for investigation, report and recommendation.^[12] Thereafter, the Board of . Governors of
the IBP passed its June 29,2002 Resolution.^[13]

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In her Report and Recommendation,^[14] Commissioner Milagros V. San; Juan, to
whom the case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and report,-: averred
that complainant and Prosecutor Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No.
4884 on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had filed
against respondent’s client. In his Comment, respondent himself claimed that
“the reason x x x was x x x the irregularities of the criminal,
investigation/connivance and consequent damages.”

Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with
damages had been filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case, in
which respondent’s client was the defendant. There was no need to implead
complainaiit and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had never participated in the
business transitions between Pan and Xm. Improper and highly questionable was
the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted by
respondent on the alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the suit was filed to
harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.

Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had no ground to
implead Prosecutor Saianga and complainant in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing,
respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility The BP adopted the investigating commissioners recommendation for
his suspension from the practice of law tor two (2) years.

The Court’s Rulling

We agree with the IBP’s recommendation.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered
to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities
and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.^[15] Membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession,
they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.”

Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. Civil
Case No. 4884 was for the “collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution
of an unregistered business venture.” It had originally been filed against
Spouses Xu, but was later modified to include complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga.

The Amended and Supplemental Complaints^[16]alleged the following:

“27. The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga
knowingly and deliberately refused and failed to perform his duty enjoined by
the law and the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan due process by
violating his rights under the Rules on preliminary investigations; he also
falsely made a Certification under oath that preliminary investigation was duly
conducted and plaintiff [was] duly informed of the charges against him but did
not answer, he maliciously and x x x partially ruled that there was probable
cause and filed a Criminal Information for estafa against plaintiff Chia Hsien
Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null
and void; x x x;

“28. Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff
Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and motion to defer for the valid grounds
stated therein deliberately refused to correct his errors and consented to the
arrest of said plaintiff under an invalid information and warrant of arrest.

“29. Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of
defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless connived with the latter -to harass and extort
money from plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal prosecution in the manner
contrary to law, morals, arid public policy, resulting to the arrest of said
plaintiff and causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]”^[17]

We concur with the BP that the amendment of the Complaint and
the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation
that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case If
respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor’s Salanga’s resolution,
they should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies
Respondent could have gone to the justice secretary and filed a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga’s decision
to file an information for estafa.

In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if
he could show that the estafa case was filed without basis. Moreover, he could
have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a
lawyer, respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these
remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had no justification.

The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga
in the business transaction subject of the collection suit shows that there was
no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent took the
estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return
the, inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of
the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the
parties according to law, not to harass them.^[18]

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers
with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as
of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their
professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must
treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients
should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other.
Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among
lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession,^[19] but also constitute highly unprofessional
conduct subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to
fittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid nor consent to the same.”

Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in
impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salangan. Such excuse is flimsy and
unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their
clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of
fraud or chicanery.^[20] Their rendition
of improper servid! invites stem and just condemnation. Correspondingly, they
advance the honor of their profession and the best interests their clients when
they render service or give advice that meets thetrictest principles of moral
law.^[21]

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the
esteem of their professional brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased,
perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. II is born of sharp
contests and thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from
integnlg, character, brains and skill in the honorable performance of
prbfessional duty. ^[22]

WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby
.SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice of law, effective
immediately.

x x x.”

The Decision was served upon respondent on July 1, 2003

__2__December 2003.

^[2] Notice of Resolution; rpllo, p.
231.

^[3] Also referred to as Zongoi Xn.

^[4] Docketed as Criminal Case No.
99-171609; rollo, p.44.

^[5] Presided by Judge Juan C. Nabong,
Jr

^[6] Rollo, p. 122.

^[7] Id., pp. 124-126.

^[8] Id, pp. 52-68.

^[9] Id, pp. 140-141.

^[10] Notice of Appeal with Attached
Appeal Memorandum/Motion for Reinvestigation with Petition for Suspension of
Preliminary Inveestigation (rollo, p. 108) and Appeal Memorandum/Motion for
Reinvestigation with Prtition for Suspension of Premininary Investigation
(rollo, pp. 109-115)

^[11] Rollo, pp. 102-121

^[12]See
Resolution dated March 22, 2000, rollo, p. 205

^[13] See Notice of
Resolution, id, p. 231.

^[14] Dated October 10, 2001, IBP.

^[15] Cui v. cui, 120 Phil. 725, 729,
August 31, 1964.

^[16] Rollo, p. 72-81.

^[17] Id, pp. 79-80.

^[18]Aguinaldo v.
Aguinaldo, 146 Phil. 726, 731, November 26, 1970.

^[19] Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293,
295, august 14, 1936; Narido v. Linsangan, 157 Phil. 87, 91 July 25, 1974.

^[20] Canon 15 cf the Canons of
Professional Ethics.

^[21] Canon 32 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics.

^[22] Agpalo, Legal Etchis (1939 ed),p.
95