Jader-Manalo v. Pilares, Jr.

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10664. January 27, 2016.][Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3050]

ATTY. THELMA A. JADER-MANALO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. RICARDO PILARES, JR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 January 2016 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10664 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3050]: ATTY. THELMA A. JADER-MANALO v. ATTY. RICARDO PILARES, JR.

On June 2, 2011, Atty. Thelma A. Jader-Manalo (Atty. Jader-Manalo) filed a verified disbarment Complaint 1 against Atty. Ricardo Pilares, Jr. (Atty. Pilares), in relation to cases involving the Estate of Rafael Batoon. Atty. Jader-Manalo represented Rafael Batoon's children, Richard and Ginalyn, while Atty. Pilares represented their mother, Engracia, and her granddaughter, Grace Pearl Batoon-Gutierrez. 2

Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that since Richard and Ginalyn could not afford to pay her, they agreed that she would be paid on a contingency basis, under the following conditions: 3

For our attorney's fee[s] we will charge you the following:

a) 30% of your share in the amount/property involved, if there is [sic] no court proceedings;

b) 50% of your share in the amount/property involved, if there is [sic] court proceedings. 4

Sometime during the litigation of the Estate, Atty. Jader-Manalo was informed by her clients that on May 18, 2007, they were called to Atty. Pilares' office and asked to sign a document they were not given an opportunity to read. 5 They later found out that the document they had signed was a Special Power of Attorney 6 in favor of their mother, Engracia, to dispose of their inherited properties. 7

Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that her clients also discovered that Engracia was able to dispose of one of the properties of the Estate by executing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Grace Pearl Batoon-Gutierrez. 8 Because of this, they were constrained to file a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Engracia. 9 aDSIHc

In the meantime, a civil case involving one of the properties was ongoing between the parties. During the pre-conference hearing, Atty. Pilares and his client Engracia proposed to amicably settle with Richard and Ginalyn, which Atty. Jader-Manalo did not object to. Atty. Pilares allegedly asked for the telephone numbers of Atty. Manalo and her clients and promised to call her to discuss the settlement. 10

On August 5, 2010, Atty. Jader-Manalo waited all day for a call from Atty. Pilares, but did not receive any. 11

On September 9, 2010, during the hearing of the criminal case against Engracia, Atty. Jader-Manalo learned from the manifestation of the trial prosecutor, Irene Resurreccion 12 (Prosecutor Resurreccion), that Atty. Pilares' secretary, Alice Abion, assisted Richard and Ginalyn in going to Prosecutor Resurreccion's office to request an affidavit of desistance for the dismissal of the criminal case. 13 Prosecutor Resurreccion refused to administer an oath of desistance on the ground that falsification was a public crime and that she knew that Richard and Ginalyn were represented by Atty. Jader-Manalo. 14

Atty. Jader-Manalo also alleged that on October 5, 2010, Atty. Pilares filed a Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees Based on Quantum Meruit in favor of Richard and Ginalyn so they could avoid paying 50% of the judgment award as attorney's fees per their agreement with Atty. Jader-Manalo. 15 The trial court denied this Motion after an opposition filed by Atty. Jader-Manalo. 16

On April 13, 2011, Atty. Jader-Manalo was surprised when Atty. Pilares manifested in open court that a compromise agreement was executed by the parties without her knowledge and consent. 17 As a result, she filed a Motion to Issue Judgment on Compromise Agreement and Include Payment of Attorney's Fees Equivalent to Fifty (50%) of Plaintiff's Share. 18

Based on these circumstances, Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that Atty. Pilares "maliciously violated the Code of Professional Responsibility." 19

In his Answer 20 dated July 15, 2011, Atty. Pilares alleged that the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Engracia was voluntarily executed by Richard and Ginalyn. 21 He also claimed that the execution of the affidavit of desistance was a directive given by his client, Grace Pearl Batoon-Gutierrez, who was able to talk to Richard and Ginalyn on the phone. He alleged that Richard and Ginalyn told his client that they did not fully understand the effects of filing the criminal case and had no intention of putting Engracia in jail, so they agreed to withdraw their complaint. 22

He alleged that he filed the Motion for fixing attorney's fees since the parties had already come to an amicable settlement and the only issue left to be resolved was that of attorney's fees. 23 He claimed that it was Atty. Jader-Manalo who discredited her profession with her selfish motives in claiming her attorney's fees, which would have allowed her to get half of the value of the properties involved in the settlement. 24

After the conduct of mandatory conference 25 and the submission of position papers, 26 Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquera (Commissioner Antiquera) issued his Report and Recommendation 27 finding Atty. Pilares liable for simple misconduct and recommending a penalty of reprimand.

Commissioner Antiquera found that Atty. Pilares violated Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 28 in two (2) instances: first, when he allowed his secretary to assist Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients in executing the affidavit of desistance; and second, when he filed the Motion to fix Atty. Jader-Manalo's attorney's fees. 29

On May 11, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-591 30 adopting and approving Commissioner Antiquera's Report and Recommendation. However, the Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty of reprimand to include a stern warning "to be more circumspect in his conduct as senior and old-time practicing lawyer. 31

Atty. Pilares filed a Motion for Reconsideration 32 assailing Commissioner Antiquera's Report and Recommendation and the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-591. On May 3, 2014, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-256 33 denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

This court adopts the findings of fact of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but modifies the penalty recommended.

Lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in their professional dealings. They also have the correlative duty to exhibit courtesy, candor, and fairness to their colleagues. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Atty. Pilares does not deny that he assisted Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients in filing an affidavit of desistance to benefit his own client, without Atty. Jader-Manalo's knowledge. Even in the event that he was merely following his client's directive or that Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients were amenable to his assistance, he should have known that assisting them without their counsel's knowledge is unethical. ETHIDa

Atty. Pilares represented conflicting interests in the litigation. All his communications to the opposing parties should have been coursed through their counsel. When he was informed by his client that the opposing parties were open to withdrawing the criminal case, he should have contacted their counsel as a matter of professional courtesy. His act of directly contacting and assisting his opposing counsel's clients without her knowledge gave him an unethical advantage in the litigation.

Atty. Pilares' acts were in direct violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.02 and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which state:

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.

Atty. Pilares also directly encroached upon Atty. Jader-Manalo's professional employment when he filed the Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees Based on Quantum Meruit. As the opposing counsel, he had no right to interfere with whatever payment agreement Atty. Jader-Manalo might have had with her clients. If Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients felt that the amount they had to pay was iniquitous or unconscionable, the proper recourse should have been for them to renegotiate the terms of their original contract; if they fail to come to an agreement, her clients should seek assistance from the court.

While Atty. Jader-Manalo's primary concern in instituting this Complaint may have been the payment of her legal fees, she was neither neglectful nor unfaithful to her clients. She fulfilled her duties as counsel in the various cases her clients were involved in. Whether she was overcharging for her legal fees was not for Atty. Pilares to decide and act on. This was an issue best left to the sound discretion of the court.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is of the opinion that a reprimand and stern warning would suffice to penalize Atty. Pilares for his infraction. Commissioner Antiquera characterized this case as "a typical example of one lawyer outsmarting the other just to achieve one's objective," 34 and that "there is nothing wrong if a lawyer outsmarts another in courtroom technique which usually happens if one is young and inexperienced." 35 The Board of Governors agreed and added that a stern warning was necessary for the "senior and old-time practicing lawyer." 36

Lawyers who have practiced for a long time must set a better example for the next generation of lawyers. The use of unethical courtroom techniques, in the guise of "outsmarting" one's opponents, only erodes the integrity of the profession. Erring lawyers must be sanctioned to prevent the continued use of these unethical practices.

In Likong v. Lim, 37 this court issued a one-year suspension for a lawyer who facilitated a compromise agreement between the parties without the opposing counsel's knowledge or participation. The erring lawyer in Likong, Atty. Alexander H. Lim, was able to execute a compromise agreement that was grossly disadvantageous to the opposing party, who was unassisted by counsel.

Here, there is no allegation that the compromise agreement executed by Atty. Pilares was grossly disadvantageous to Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients. Atty. Pilares also admits to filing the Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees Based on Quantum Meruit to assist Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients in paying what he perceived to be just and equitable attorney's fees. In this instance, a suspension for six (6) months should suffice for Atty. Pilares' infraction.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ricardo Pilares, Jr. is hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.

Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in respondent's personal record as attorney and member of the bar, and furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-10.

2. Id. at 2.

3. Id.

4. Id. at 2 and 12.

5. Id. at 3.

6. Id. at 15.

7. Id. at 3.

8. Id. at 4.

9. Id. at 5.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. The Complaint spells Prosecutor Resurreccion's surname as Resurrecion (rollo, p. 5), while the Transcript of Stenographic Notes before the Metropolitan Trial Court spells her surname as Resurreccion (Id. at 92-94).

13. Rollo, p. 5.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 6.

16. Id. at 128.

17. Id. at 8.

18. Id. at 9.

19. Id.

20. Id. at 498-528.

21. Id. at 505.

22. Id. at 515.

23. Id. at 516.

24. Id. at 524.

25. Id. at 667.

26. Id. at 336-412.

27. Id. at 666-668.

28. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 8, rule 8.02 provides:

 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.

29. Rollo, pp. 667-668.

30. Id. at 665. The Resolution was penned by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.

31. Id.

32. Id. at 669-685.

33. Id. at 704. The Resolution was penned by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.

34. Id. at 667.

35. Id.

36. Id. at 665.

37. A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 414 [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].