OCA CIRCULAR NO. 177-2003, December 15, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Decision of the Court En Banc dated August 7, 2002 in Adm. Case
No. 1890, to wit:

This Complaint for disbarment was filed by Federico C. Suntay
against his nephew, Atty. Rafael G. Suntay, alleging that respondent was his
legal adviser and confidant who was privy to all his legal, financial and
political affairs from 1956 to 1964. However, since they parted ways because of
politics and respondent’s overweening political ambitions in 1964, respondent
had been filling complaits and cases against complainant, making use of
confidential information gained while their attorney-client relationship
existed, and otherwise harrasing him at every turn.

Complaint enumerated the following cases filed by respondent to
harras him: (a) Civil Case No. 4306-M ^[1]
for injunction and damages in 1975, “Carlos Panganiban v. Dr. Federico
Suntay,” where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff involving
fishponds which respondent had previously helped to administer; (b) Civil Case
No. 4726-M, ^[2] “Narciso Lopez v.
Federico Suntay,” in 1970 where respondent appeared as counsel for the
plaintiff to determine the real contract between the parties likewise involving
the two (2) fishpond which respondent had previously helped to administer, (c)
Civil Case No. 112764, ^[3] “Magno
Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay,” for damages where respondent appeaered as
counsel for the plaintiff, and, (d) I.S. No. 77-1523, “Magno Dinglasan vs.
Federico Suntay,” for false testimony and grave oral defamation before the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan involving complaint’s same testimony
subject of the complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 112764.

In addition, complainant alleged that respondent relentlessly
pursued a case against him for violation of PD No. 296 ^[4] for the alleged disappearance of two (2 )
creeks traversing complainant’s fishpond in Bulacan covered by TCT No. T-15674.
Complainant alleged that respondent’s possession and examination of the TCT and
the blueprint plan of the property while he was still counsel for complainant
provided him with the information that there used to be two (2) creeks
traversing the fishpond, and that since respondent helped in the administration
of the fishpond, he also came to know that the two (2) creeks had
disappeared.

Required to answer the charges respondent filed a “Motion
to Order Compalinant to Specify His Charges” alleging that complainant
failed to specify that alleged “confidential information or intellegence” gained
by him while the attorney-client relationship existed but which he alleagedly
used against complainant when the relationship terminated. Complaintnant filed
his Comments thereon as required in ourt Resolution of 26 July 1978. Thereafter
this case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for
investigation, report and recommendation in our Resolution dated 23 October
1978.

After almost four (4) years the OSG submitted its Report and
Recommendation dated 14 October 1982 enumerating the following findings against
respondent, to wit:

The evidence presented by complainant which was largely
unrebutted by respondent establish two counts of malpractice against respondent,
one count of violating the confidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and one
count of engaging in unethical conduct.

1. Respondent commited malpractice when he represented Magno
   Dinglasan in the case for false testimony and grave oral defamation, filed by
   Magno Dinglasan against complainant before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
   of Bulacan (I.S. No. 77-1523).

The case stemmed from the testimony given by complainant on December 21,
1976, before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 3930-M.
When asked why Magno Dinglasan had testified against him in that casem
complainant stated that he once decliened the demand of Magno Dinglasan, a
former official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for P150,000 as consideration
for the destruction of complainant’s record in the Bureau.

On account of the testimony, Magno Dinglasan charged complaint on July 29,
1977 with the crime of false testimony and grace oral defamation (Exhibit G and
G-1). During the preliminary investigation of the case by the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, respondent acted as counsel for Magno Dinglasan.
When the case was dismissed by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan
and it was elevated to the Ministry of Justice on appeal, respondent continued
to be the lawyer of Magno Dinglasan.

Complainant testified in his disbarment proceeding that he counsulted
respondent, who was then this counsel, about the demand made in 1957 to 1958 by
Magno Dinglasan for P150,000 as consideration for the destruction of
complainant’s record in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Respondent’s advice was
for complainant to disregard the demand as it was improper. Later, when Magno
Dinglasan reduced the amount to P50,000, complainant again consulted respondent.
Respondent likewise advised complainant not to heed the demand (p. 61-62, tsn,
May 21, 1981).

Respondent’s representation of Magno Dinglasan in I.S. No.77-1523 constitute
malpractice (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court) for respondent was previously
the lawyer of complainant and respondent was consulted by complainant regarding
the very matter which was the subject of the case. By serving as the lawyer of
Magno Dinglasan, in I.S. No. 77-1523, respondent thus represented an interest
which conflicted which conflicted with the interest of his former
client.

2. Respondent again committed malpractice when he served as lawyer of Magno
   Dinglasan in Civil Case No. 112734 before the Court of First Instace of
   Manila.

Civil Case No. 112764 was an action for damages filed by Magno Dinglasan
against complaint based, among others, on the same testimony that complainant
based, among others, on the same testimony that complianant basedm on December
21, 1976 before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No.
3930-M.

For the same reason set forth above, respondent’s representation of Magno
Dinglasan in Civil Case No. 112764 consitute malpractice as thereby he
represented conflicting interests.

3. In filling a charge against complainant for alleged illegal destruction of
   dikes, respondent violated the confidentiality of information obtained out of a
   client-lawyer relationship.

   In his capacity as lawyer of complainant from 1956 to 1964, respondent had
   the following functions:

   “Witness

   “A: He was my lawyer from 1956 from the time he passed the bar up to sometime
   in 1964 and my legal adviser on political and legal matters.

   “ATTY. AQUINO
   “Q: As your lawyer from 1956 to 1964, will you kindly inform
   the Honorable Hearing Officer what was the nature of the work of Atty.
   Suntay?

   “A: He handled my cases on the titling of our propeties. He served as my
   legal counsel in the Hagonoy Rural Bank of which my family is the majority
   stockholders. He used to help me manage my fishpond. He is our legal advise on
   legal matters. He has complete access in our papers (tsn, May 21,
   1981)

   Complainant owned several fishpond in Bulacan, among them, the fishpond
   covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15674. The fishpond was
   previously traversed by two creeks. Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang. The
   existence of the creeks is shown by the certificate of title and Ihe blue print
   plan of the fishpond. In the certificate ol title, the fishpond is bounded on
   the north and northeast by Sanang Caluang and on the west by Sapang Malalin
   (plcaso bh Exhibit 6).

   In a letter dated March 17, 1973, respondent reported the disappearance of
   lbs two creeks to the authorities. The Chief State Prosecutor referred Ihe
   letter to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan The Office ol the
   Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan required the Public Works to conduct a re-survey.
   (Exhibit 6).

   In 1974, the Ministry of Public Works conducted a relocation survey of the
   fishpond. The relocation survey disclosed that there were no more creeks
   traversing the fishpond. Sepong Malolim and Sapang Caluang had
   disappeared.

Respondent was requested to Tile a formal complaint with supporting
affidavits, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 296. Respondent did so and
No complaint docketed as IS. No. 74-193. (Exhibit 6).

From the foregoing facts, it is clear (hut respondent made of (he
inibrroalion be gained wliilc he was the lawyer of complainant as basis for his
complaint for [he building or illegal difces. His possession and examination of
Transfrj 1 Certificate of Tide No. T-15675 and the blueprint plan provided him
the information thai there used to be two creeks traversing the fishpond covered
by ihe title. Since he helped in the administration of the fishpond, he also
came to know thai (Lie two crecKs had disappeared Thus, he gained the data which
became ihe basis of his complaint when he was a lawyer and pait adminisirator of
complainant. Under the circumstances, there is a violation of professional
confidence.

4. The evidence also establishes [he commission of unethical conduct by
   rcspondent for serving as lawyer ol Panganiban and Lopez x x x and for himself
   filing criminal charges againsl complainant which were later dismissed. The
   eases wherein respondenl served as lawyer for the adversary of coraplainant or
   filed by respondent hirnseh’against complainant are the following:
   1. Carlos Panganiban v. Federico Suntay, Civil Case No. 4306-M, CFI a Branch
      VII, Malolos, Bulacan;

   2. Narcisco Lopez v Fedenco Suntay, Civil No. 4726-M. CF1, Branch II, Malolos,
      Bulacan;

   3. Magno D ingtasan v. Federico Suntay. I S No. 77-1523, Office of the
      Provincial Fiscal of Bulucan:

   4. Magno Droglasan v. Pederico Sunlsy, Case No 112764. CFI, Branch XX, Manila,
      and

   5. Rafael G. Suntey and Magno Dinglasan v Fedcnco Suniay, IS. No. 74-193 h
      Office of ihe Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan for violation of P.D. 296.

   While there maybe validity to respondent’s contention that it is not improper
   for a lawyer to file a case againsl a former client, especially when the
   professional relationship had ended several years before, yet under the over-all
   circumstances of the case ai bar it cannot be said lhai respondcnl acted
   critically. Complainant was not a mere client of respondent. He is an uncle and
   uncle political benefactor. The parties for whom respondent filed cases against
   complainant were former friends or associates of complainant whom respondent met
   when he was serving l& the lawyer and general adviser of complainant. The
   cases filed by respondent were about properties which respondent had something
   to do with as counsel and administrator or complainant.

X X X X X

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, undersigned respectfully submit Ihat
the evidence establishes commission by respondent of malpractice for
violuting’the confidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and engaging in
unethical conduct. x x x x ^[5]

Resolution of this case was delayed despite receipt of the foregoing Report
and Recommendation in view of the Omnibus Motion to Remand Case to the
Office of the Solicitor General Motion to Disqualify Solicitor Kogclio Dancel to
Act on this Case and Motion to Suspend Period to File Answer dated 18
January 19S3 filed by respondent principally accusing handling Solicitor Dancel
of having given unwarranted advantage and preference to the complainant in the
investigation of the case. Alter several pleadings on the issue were filed liy
both respondent and Solicitor Rogeho Dancel, the Court in its Resolution dated
22 August 1983 denied respondents motion to disqualify Solicitor Dancel and
required the OSG to pioceed with the investigation of this case. However, no
further proceedings were conducted by the OSG until die records of ihe case
together with other cases were turned over to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on 19 May 1988.

After almost three (3) years from the time the records of this case were
turned over to it, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted to this Court
on 11 May 2001 Resuluimn No, X1V-2001-69 adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner finding respondent guilty as
charged. The IBP recommended that respondent Atty. Suntay be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years for immoral conduct. In so recommending the
Investigating Commissioner adopted in toto the findings ofthc OSG in
its Report and Recommendation dated 14 October 1982, In our Resolution of 5
September 2001 we noied the Foregoing IBP Resolution. However, in view of
the penally involved, this case was referred to the Coun En Banc for final
action pursuant to our Resolution dated IS January 2000, Sec. 2, par, (b), in
A.M. No. 99- 12-08-SC ^[5]

After a review of the records of this case, the Court finds the IBP
Recommendation to be well taken. As found by both the OSG and the IBP Invcsti
gating Commissioner, respondent Atty. Rafael G, Suntay acted as counsel for
clients in cases involvingsubject matters regarding’which h e h ad either been
previously consulted by complainant or which he had previously helped
complainant to administer as the latter is counsel and confidant from 1956 to
1964. Thus in Civil Cases Nos. 4306-M and 4726- respondent acted as counsel for
estranged business associates of complainant, namely, Carlos Panganiban and
Narciso Lopez, the subject matter of which were the two (2) fishponds which
respondent had previously helped to administer.

On the other hand, LS. No. 77-1523 for false tesiimorn and grave oral
defamation before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, and Civil Case
No. U27G4 for damages before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, were
filed in behalf of Magno Dinglasan, a former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
official, regarding whose alleged demand Tor P150,000 r00 from complainant in
exchange for the destruction of the latter’s record in the BIR, respondent had
previously advised complainant xo disregard. Civil Case No. 117fr24 and I.S. No,
77-1523 were precisely filed against complainant because the latter had
previously testified on the alleged demand made by Dinglasan. Although
respondent denied thai there was ever such a demand made by Dinglasan, the point
is that his word on the matter, i.e., whether there was in fact such a demand,
would cany much weigh! against compUun^ni considering that he was the latter’s
counsel in 1957 or 1958 when the alleged demand was made. In addition,
respondent initiated the prosecution of complainant in I S. No 74-193 for
violation of P.D. No. 296 ^[6] for the
disappearance of the two (2) creeks, namely, Sapang Malalim and Sapang
Oilu&ng, previously traversing complainant’s fishpond in Bulacan covered by
TCT No, T-15674 by using information obtained while he was in possession of the
certificate of title and ihe blueprint plan of the property.

As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 21.01.- A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his
client except:

a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of
the disclosure;

b) When required by law.

c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.

Rule 21.02. – A lawyer shall not,-to the disadvantage of hia client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, not shall he use the same to
his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with lull
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secret:, of his clients even
after termination or the attorney-client relation.” As his defense to the
charges, respondent averred that complainant failed to specify the alleged
confidential information used against him. Such a defense is unavailing to help
respondent’s cause for as succinctly explained in Hilado v. David. –
^[9]

Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of
litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and
irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the complexity of what is said in
the course of [he dealings between an attorney and a client, inquiry of
the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of
other mattery that might only further prejudice the complainant’s cause. And the
theory would be productive of other unsanitary results. To make the passing of
confidential communication a condition precedent, i.e., to make the
employment conditioned on the scope and character of the knowledge acquired by
an attorney in determining his right to change sides, would not enhance the
freedom of litigants, which is to be sedulously fostered, to consult vvilh
lawyers upon what they believe arc their rights in litigation. Tlie condition
would of necessity call fur an investigation of what information the attorney
has received and in what way it is or it is not in conflict with his new
position. Litigants would m consequence be wary in going to an attorney, lest by
an unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if an investigation be held, the court
should accepi me attorney’s inaccurate version of the facts that came to him x x
x x

Hence, the necessity of setting down existence of the
barerehitiotishipofattorney and client as the yardstick for testing
incompatibility of interests. This stem rule is designed not alone to prevent
the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct,butas wellto piotect [he
honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice x x x x It is
founded on principles of public policy, on good taste x x x .[T|he
question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether
the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. V]ih [V| CAe thoughts
in mind, it behooves attorneys, like – Caesar’s wife, not only to keep inviolate
the ctient’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets
to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of
jushce.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, IBP Resolution No. XTV-2001-169 dated 29
April 2001 is adopted and approved. For violating the confidentiality of
lawyer-cliem relationship and for unethical conduct, respondeni Aity. Rafael G.
Suntay is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon
the finality hereof. Respondent was furnished copy of the decj^on in resolution
dated 29 July 2003.

__15__ December 2003.

^[2] Also of the CFI-Bulacan

^[3] Of the CFI-Manila.

^[4] Directing all Persons, Natural or
Judicial, to Tenounce Possession and Move Out of Portions of Rivers, Checks,
Esteros, Drainage Channels and Other Similar Waterways Enroached Upon by Them
and Prescribinf Penalty for Violation Hereof.

^[5] Rollo, Vol. III. pp. 207-214

^[5] Referal of Administrative Matters
and Cases to the Divisions of the Court or to the Chief Justice and Chairman of
Division for Appropriate Actions.

^[6] See Note 4.

^[8] Canon 21, Code of Professional
Responsibility

^[9] 84 Phil. 569, 578-579 (1949).