SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12147. November 15, 2021.]
IK KWAN LEE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. SIMEON C. SATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12147 (Ik Kwan Lee v. Atty. Simeon C. Sato). — This is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment dated June 30, 2015 filed by Ik Kwan Lee (Lee) 2 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Simeon C. Sato (Atty. Sato) for allegedly violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Facts:
Lee alleged that on May 19, 2015, he saw a car parked inside the compound of RIH ITA Electronics Corporation located at Cavite Export Processing Zone, Rosario, Cavite. A company guard informed Lee that the man who parked the car, later identified as Atty. Sato, ignored the employees. Atty. Sato proceeded directly to Superdog Agency Security Guard, an agency employed by Lee's lessee, OTKM. Lee then saw Atty. Sato talking to the OTKM staff forklift operator. 3
When Atty. Sato saw Lee, he angrily told him, "You should not be here, it [has been] a long time [since] you have been gone and now suddenly you came back." Lee replied, "I came to claim my factory back." Allegedly, Atty. Sato threatened Lee using both the Filipino and English languages. During Atty. Sato's tirade, Lee instructed Lilian dela Cruz to retrieve her iPad to record the incident. When he realized what was about to happen, Atty. Sato hurriedly entered his car then shouted al Lee, ''I will send you to jail! [Ipakukulong kita. hayop ka!]." Afterwards, Atty. Sato left the premises. 4 Apparently, Atty. Sato is the opposing counsel in an ejectment case Lee supposedly already won. 5
Conversely, Atty. Sato contended that he tried to explain the reason for his visit at the compound, which was related to the civil cases between his client and Lee. He admitted entering the premises but argued that he was "shooed away like a cat." Embarrassed, Atty. Sato shouted back at Lee, "I will send you to jail!" 6
Report and Recommendation of the
In a Report and Recommendation 7 dated October 19, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline noted that Atty. Sato admitted angrily shouting at Lee saying, "I will send you to jail!" 8 In light of this, the Investigating Commissioner stated that a lawyer must conduct himself/herself ethically and morally, and should not engage in·any behavior that would adversely affect his/her fitness to practice law. He added that Atty. Sato should have held his temper and avoided having an argument with Lee. Hence, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sato be reprimanded.
In a Resolution 9 dated April 20, 2017, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Since Atty. Sato already admitted to uttering "I will send you to jail!" to Lee in a bout of anger, there is no need to belabor the point. Atty. Sato violated the Lawyer's Oath, specifically the undertaking that he "will conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion." Likewise, he violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR, as follows:
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Clearly, Atty. Sato's actions did not promote respect for the legal profession and his scandalous behavior risked shaming the Bar. Threatening to send Lee to jail should not be taken lightly, given Atty. Sato's position and reputation as a lawyer. Thus, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, Atty. Sato should be disciplined. However, since this is his first administrative infraction, and given his admission of guilt, the penalty of reprimand is proper under the circumstances. 10 Additionally, Atty. Sato's age is taken into account. Moreover, it should be considered that since Atty. Sato engaged in a heated argument with Lee, in all likelihood, he got carried away. Emotions ran high, considering that there are civil cases between Atty. Sato's client and Lee. Even so, Atty. Sato should be warned not to engage in the same or any similar act in the future.
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Simeon C. Sato is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
The Letter dated February 28, 2018 of Marlou B. Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline, is NOTED.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney.
SO ORDERED."(S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2. Also referred to as Ik Hwan Lee in some parts of the records.
3.Rollo, p. 6.
4.Id. at 6, 9, 42.
5.Id. at 6-7.
6.Id. at 14-15, 42.
7.Id. at 42-43. Penned by Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano.
8.Id. at 42.
9.Id. at 40-41.
10.Hermoso v. Manaig-Calumpong, A.M. No. MTJ-20-1947 (Notice), January 19, 2021.