Angeles v. Derez

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11747. September 11, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1559]

ATTY. SERGIO F. ANGELES, petitioner, vs.ATTYS. ROMEO R. DEREZ AND OSCAR C. SAHAGUN, respondents.

[A.C. No. 11748. September 11, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 05-16-01]

ATTY. ROMEO R. DEREZ, petitioner, vs.ATTY. SERGIO F. ANGELES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 11, 2019which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 11747 [formerly CBD Case No. 05-1559] (Atty. Sergio F. Angeles vs. Attys. Romeo R. Derez and Oscar C. Sahagun) and A.C. No. 11748 [formerly CBD Case No. 05-16-01] (Atty. Romeo R. Derez vs. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles).

Sergio F. Angeles (Angeles) had been a law practitioner since his admission to the Bar in 1960, 1 and in its course engaged the assistance of Atty. Romeo R. Derez (Atty. Derez) and Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun (Atty. Sahagun). Angeles hired Atty. Derez as an associate of the Angeles Law Office 2 in 1998, 3 and assigned to him the handling of the land registration case of Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar (Dr. Malvar), and later the cases of the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez. 4 Angeles likewise hired Atty. Sahagun as an associate of the Angeles Law Office. 5 Both lawyers handled cases for Angeles' law office until the series of events and professional misconducts alleged in these consolidated disbarment complaints.

Angeles submits that his two former associates merit disbarment for various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), while Atty. Derez counters that it is Angeles who warrants disbarment due to the alleged false accusations he made in his complaint. cAaDHT

Angeles forwards the following allegations against Atty. Derez: (1) while Atty. Derez was still handling the cases of the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez (Heirs of Lopez), and without his professional responsibilities thereto being terminated, he made hostile representations in behalf of Angeles' former client, Dr. Malvar, against him and the Heirs of Lopez, and thereby represented conflicting interests, in violation of Rule 15.03 6 of the CPR; (2) Atty. Derez took advantage of the falling out between Angeles and Dr. Malvar and entered appearances in two cases 7 even without Angeles' withdrawal of appearance; 8 (3) he entered his own representations in other cases which were entrusted to and were being handled by Angeles; 9 and finally (4) he took undue advantage of the hostile relations between Angeles and Dr. Malvar and represented Dr. Malvar in the cases he filed against Angeles. 10 Upon motion for disqualification, Atty. Derez, in an Order 11 dated May 23, 2006 was disqualified to represent Dr. Malvar in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) cases against Angeles which are pending before the IBP-CBD.

Against Atty. Sahagun, Angeles argues that he violated Rule 8.02 12 and Rule 15.03 of the CPR allegedly as follows: (1) during the falling out between Angeles and Dr. Malvar, and in a sudden change of loyalties, Atty. Sahagun poured "kerosene into the fire" 13 when he represented Dr. Malvar in the filing of the criminal case of estafa and civil cases for collections of sums of money against Angeles; 14 and (2) he cooperated with Dr. Malvar in the hauling away of the office furniture, fixture, and records of cases located in Angeles' law office located in España, Manila without Angeles' consent, 15 which prompted Angeles to file a case of theft against them.

In his defense, Atty. Derez specifically denies the allegations of misconduct, and clarifies that on the contrary, it was Angeles who was already found to have violated the CPR, and was in fact previously suspended from the practice of law for one year in A.C. No. 2519, 16 and that the amounts which Angeles paid him were not merely professional fees but also covered due reimbursements for actual and miscellaneous expenses including gasoline, transportation, and representation allowances. 17

In his verified answer, 18 Atty. Sahagun also specifically denies all the material allegations against him, and offers his affirmative defenses. He states that the true reason for the rift between Angeles and Dr. Malvar was Angeles' own neglect, which caused the dismissal of a petition in the case of "Anastacia Capus vda. De Canillo v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc.,"19 the litigation of which Dr. Malvar was financing. The final straw that broke the professional engagement between the two was when Dr. Malvar confronted Angeles as to the reason of the dismissal of the petition, and the same query was met with Angeles' insistent refusal to explain. Atty. Sahagun denies being the reason for the enmity that grew between Angeles and Dr. Malvar, and submits that such was Angeles' own doing, as shown by two pending disbarment complaints filed against him by Canillos and Dr. Malvar. 20

After due investigation, the IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner) found only both Atty. Angeles and Atty. Derez in error, but otherwise dismissed the other charges against both Atty. Derez and Atty. Sahagun for want of merit. 21 The Commissioner found that Atty. Derez violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR when he represented the Heirs of Lopez first, when he was still an associate of Angeles, and then later when he represented Dr. Malvar against the Heirs of Lopez. Citing Orola v. Ramos, 22 the Commissioner found that in cases of successive representation of two different clients, a conflict of interest may arise when the interest of the second client opposes the interest of the first client. 23

With respect to the charges against Atty. Sahagun, the Commissioner found them to be lacking in merit.

With respect to the disbarment complaint leveled against Angeles in CBD Case No. 05-1601, the Commissioner's recommendation found Angeles to have violated Rules 1.01 and 10.01, when he made false statements against Atty. Derez. 24 It ruled that Angeles violated the above rules and acted in a dishonest manner when he filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Derez on the basis of fabricated allegations that were bereft of probative basis, such as when he alleged that the latter made "representations for himself" in various cases. 25 In his report, the Commissioner recommended that Angeles be strongly reprimanded for violating Rules 1.01 and 10.1. 26

In a Resolution 27 dated August 27, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the investigating Commissioner.

After reviewing the established circumstances of the case, the Court accepts the findings against Atty. Sahagun and Atty. Derez.

It goes as a forgotten presumption that a lawyer's simultaneous service of conflicting interests is closely prohibited, save for the narrow exemption of a secured prior written consent of all the parties whose interests are or may be in conflict. The policy of guarding against any possibility of serving two clients with opposing agenda is carefully guarded not only in line with good taste, but more importantly, public policy. 28

With respect to the allegations of violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR against respondents, the pertinent two-part rule provides that, on the one hand, (1) lawyers must be secured in the faithful practice of the legal profession without fear of any other practitioner pouncing in, so to speak, to take away his clients unjustly and with impunity, but on the other (2) that lawyers must likewise be unbridled by this rule in rendering proper legal advice to clients whose legal concerns have been deserted by neglectful lawyers who fail in their own duties. In the case at bar, the records show that respondents appeared in the cases being handled by complainant while they were engaged as associates in complainant's law firm, and therefore may not be held to have been encroaching on the engagement of Angeles. It is a settled rule that employment of the services of a law office means not just engaging the lawyer personally appearing for the case, but the entire law office itself. 29 With regard to complainant's allegations that respondents encroached upon his employment when they separately represented Dr. Malvar in the cases that the latter filed against complainant, the Commissioner correctly found that the same falls squarely within the exception as provided in the second clause of Rule 8.02. AHCETa

Finally, Rules 1.01 and 10.01 require that a lawyer's conduct before the court be candid and fair, 30 without attempts at concealing the truth, 31 or any other dishonest means to make false allegations in a pleading. Here, all but one of the charges that complainant leveled against respondents were lacking in merit, or were otherwise outright proven false by contrary documentary evidence. Complainant's lack of candor as demonstrated by these unsupported allegations merit the appropriate reproach as well.

We note however, that in Canillo v. Angeles, 32 We had found Angeles guilty of violating Rules 1.01, 15.03, 16.01, 16.04, and 18.3, and Canon 17 of the CPR, and had disbarred him for violating these provisions.

In Domingo v. Revilla, 33 We emphasized that a disbarred lawyer who is found to have committed an offense that constitutes another ground prior to his eventual disbarment may be heavily fined therefor. We do not lose exclusive jurisdiction over a disbarred lawyer over his other disbarrable act or actuation committed while he was still a member of the Law Profession. The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their Lawyer's Oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the Bar. 34

In Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho, 35(Dumlao) We also held that since there is no double or multiple disbarment in Our jurisdiction, We suspended a lawyer despite being previously disbarred. In Dumlao, however, We clarified that under the facts of the case, the imposition of the penalty was only for record's purposes in the lawyer's personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant; such that this Court, by his personal record, shall be fully informed that aside from his disbarment, he also committed other infractions that would have merited the imposition of penalties. We added that these factors shall be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer subsequently file a petition to lift his disbarment. 36

Here, the acts imputed against Angeles constituting violations of Rules 1.01 and 10.1 happened prior to his disbarment. As discussed, the Commissioner found that Angeles violated these provisions when he made false statements and filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Derez. These infractions are different from the grounds cited in his previous disbarment. In this regard, We adopt the findings of the Commissioner, and as in Dumlao, We adopt the meted penalty of reprimand only for the purpose of recording in his personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant. 37

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the findings and recommendation to dismiss the disbarment complaint against Sergio F. Angeles, Atty. Romeo R. Derez and Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun and to STRONGLY REPRIMAND Sergio F. Angeles and respondent Atty. Romeo R. Derez. Considering that Sergio F. Angeles had been previously disbarred, the penalty imposed in this case can be considered in the event he applies for the lifting of his previous disbarment in Canillo v. Angeles. ScHADI

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into the records of Sergio F. Angeles. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 2.

2.Id. at 423; with office address at Room 311, Doña Amparo Building, España, Manila.

3.Id. at 3.

4.Id.; the cases included the following: (1) Jose Esquivel, Jr. and Carlito Talens v. Marcelino Lopez, et al., Civil Case No. 96-4193 now on appeal in G.R. No. 168734; (2) Angelina Villarosa Hizon, et al. and Sergio F. Angeles v. Carlito Talens and Jose Esquivel, Jr., Civil Case No. 95-3693; and (3) Marcelino Lopez, et al. v. Ricardo Bergonia, et al., Civil Case No. 027-02.

5.Id. at 6; with office address at Room B, Malvar Center, 531 Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.

6.Id. at 4; Rule 15.03. — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

7.Id. at 4-5. The two cases are Josefina Flores, et al. v. El Reyno Homes, et al., Civil Case No. Q-99-38845; and Heirs of Ambrocio Cesa, et al. v. Collective Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. TM-826.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. The other cases included: (1) Azucena Garcia, et al. v. AF Development Corporation, Civil Case No. TG-1784; and (2) Angeles L. Aquino, et al. v. El Reyno Homes, Inc., et al., Civil Case No. Q-99-38845.

10. Id. at 202; the cases he allegedly represented Dr. Malvar in included: (1) Dr. Potenciano Malvar v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles and Marcelino Lopez, I.S. No. 05A-01371 before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila; (2) Dr. Potenciano Malvar v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles, CBD Case No. 05-1404; and (3) Dr. Potenciano Malvar v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles, CBD Case No. 05-1422.

11. Id. at 229-230; the IBP-CBD Order stated that said disqualification was in order to avoid any misimpression of conflict of interest.

12. Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

13. Id. at 8.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 9.

16. Id. at 63.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 104-111.

19. Id. at 433; this was the petition of Anastacia Capus vda. De Canillo which was filed with the Supreme Court.

20. Id. at 435.

21. In CBD Case No. 05-1559:

   (1) Atty. Romeo R. Derez be strongly reprimanded for violating Rule 15.03 in representing conflicting interests when he represented Dr. Potenciano Malvar against the interest of the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez;

   (2) The charges against Atty. Romeo R. Derez for violation of Rule 8.02 in allegedly representing for himself the clients of Atty. Sergio F. Angeles in several cases and violation of Rule 15.03 in representing Dr. Potenciano Malvar in criminal complaints against Atty. Sergio F. Angeles are dismissed for lack of merit;

   (3) The charges against Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun for violation of Rules 8.02 and 15.03 in allegedly representing conflicting interests when he represented Dr. Potenciano Malvar in criminal and civil cases against Atty. Sergio F. Angeles are dismissed for lack of merit; and

   (4) The charges against Atty. Oscar C. Sahagun for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility in allegedly cooperating with Dr. Potenciano Malvar in taking away office furniture, fixture and case records of Atty. Sergio F. Angeles is dismissed for lack of merit.

   In CBD Case No. 05-1601:

   (1) Atty. Sergio F. Angeles be strongly reprimanded for violating Rules 1.01 and 10.01 in making false statements in his complaint against Attys. Romeo R. Derez and Oscar C. Sahagun. Id. at 447-448.

22. A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 350.

23. Rollo, pp. 439-440.

24. Id. at 447.

25. Id.

26. Id. at 448.

27. Id. at 417-418.

28. Orola v. Ramos, supra note 22 at 357.

29. Rillaroza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunications, Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 104600, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA 566.

30. Occeña v. Marquez, G.R. No. L-27396, September 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 38, 40.

31. Comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 53.

32. A.C. Nos. 9899-9905, September 4, 2018.

33. A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018, 852 SCRA 360, 364, 378.

34. Id.

35. A.C. No. 10498, September 4, 2018.

36. Id.

37. In Dumlao, We held, thus: "x x x In this case, the infractions committed by respondent are influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers and disrespecting court processes. These offenses are different from that of his previous administrative case that caused his disbarment. There is no monetary penalty that could be imposed against respondent because he has no unpaid debt or misappropriated funds. Verily, a fine or an order to pay a monetary obligation cannot be imposed upon him. Thus, the Court finds that, as respondent was previously disbarred, it is proper to give the corresponding penalty of suspension for two (2) years from the practice of law for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file in the OBC. x x x" (Id.)