Luym v. Mahinay

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6780. March 15, 2022.]

DOUGLAS LUYM, complainant, vs.ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 15, 2022which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 6780 (Douglas Luym v. Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay). — The instant administrative case arose from a sworn Complaint-Letter 1 dated June 01, 2005 filed on July 18, 2005 by Douglas Luym (complainant) against Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay (respondent) before the Supreme Court-Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for alleged unethical conduct, gross ignorance of the law and violation of Canon 1, Rule 10.1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 2

The Factual Antecedents

Complainant is among the defendants in Civil Case No. CEB-27717, for Accounting with Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction, entitled Gertrudes Nabua, et al. v. Douglas Luym, et al., (civil case) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, while respondent was the counsel for one of the complainants in the said civil case. 3

During the pendency of the civil case, complainant (as defendant therein) filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was eventually denied by the RTC. As a result, complainant questioned the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, eventually reaching this Court in G.R. No. 161309. In a Decision 4 dated February 23, 2005, this Court granted in part complainant's Petition for Certiorari and remanded the case to the RTC to resolve anew with deliberate dispatch complainant's Motion to Dismiss. 5 Respondent accordingly filed a Motion for Reconsideration 6 of this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 161309.

According to complainant, respondent engaged in unethical conduct and practice in connection with the above-mentioned civil case, singling out the particular acts:

1. Refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161309, and instead, insisting it was rendered moot and academic by the RTC's Decision in Civil Case No. 27717;

2. Filing a pleading in Civil Case No. 27717 and furnishing copies of the same to the Office of the President, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, none of whom are parties to the case; CAIHTE

3. Attempting to deceive/mislead these government offices into thinking that the Regional Trial Court's decision is already valid and binding by quoting portions of the same while conveniently failing to mention the following:

a. that at the time of the filing, the Regional Trial Court's Decision was the subject of a Motion for Reconsideration;

b. that there was a Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161309 ordering the Regional Trial Court to resolve the Motion to Dismiss; and

c. that [respondent] himself filed (in behalf of his client) a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 161309.

4. Writing a letter addressed to Mr. John Luym of Ludo and Luym Development Corporation and filing the same as a pleading in Civil Case No. CEB-27717, when in fact, said person and corporation were not impleaded as parties to the case;

5. By quoting portions of the same while conveniently failing to mention the Attempting to deceive Mr. John Luym of Ludo and Luym Development Corporation that into thinking that the Regional Trial Court's Decision is already valid and binding following:

a. that at the time of the filing, the Decision was the subject of a Motion for Reconsideration;

b. that there was a Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161309 ordering the case remanded back for the resolution of a Motion to Dismiss; and,

c. that [respondent] himself filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 161309.

6. Asking the Regional Trial Court to declare its Decision as final and executory and made an entry of judgment in Civil Case No. 27717 notwithstanding a pending motion for reconsideration of such Decision (which [complainant] filed) as well as a pending Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's Decision in G.R. No. 161309 (which remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court to resolve the Motion to Dismiss [complainant] filed) which [respondent himself filed]. 7

In particular, the letter 8 sent by respondent to John Luym (John) (who was not a party to the civil case) bore on its face the caption of the Civil Case common to a pleading or issuance/order/resolution of a court. Complainant alleges that respondent made it appear to John that the said letter emanated from the civil proceedings: 9

"Republic of the Philippines

Civil Case No.

Gertrudes Nabua, et.al.,

April 27, 2005

Mr. JOHN L. LUYM

Dear Sir:

This is to inform your establishment that on March 16, 2005 the Court x x x" 10 HEITAD

In response, respondent denied the above enumerated complained acts. Respondent contends that he did not refuse to acknowledge the validity of the Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 161309 but was merely trying to protect the rights and interests of his client. Anent the 2nd and 3rd complained acts, respondent argues that the filing of the said motion was merely a result of RTC Order directing the Bureau of Internal Revenue to impose and compute the necessary inheritance taxes due on the properties, which complainant was supposed to account. 11

Anent the 4th and 5th complained acts, respondent finds nothing wrong therein. Respondent claims he was merely sending a notice to John of Ludo and Luym Corporation regarding the decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-27717. Respondent argues that the use of the caption of the case as a header for his letter was supposedly to make it convenient for the addressee to check the veracity of its contents from the court records. 12

Report and Recommendation of the

In its Resolution 13 dated February 20, 2006, this Court referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the conduct of investigation, report and recommendation, which was docketed as Admin. Case No. 6780. 14

Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted its investigation and invited the parties to argue on their positions. After the termination of the mandatory conference, the parties were ordered and they subsequently submitted their respective Position Papers. Thereafter, the case was submitted for resolution. 15 Notably, during the pendency of the proceedings before the IBP, this Court in G.R. No. 161309 denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on behalf of his client. 16

In his Report and Recommendation 17 dated October 17, 2008, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa (Funa) dismissed the complaint with respect to the other complained acts but found respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01, 10.03 and 12.04 of the CPR for having clearly misused court processes and pleadings when respondent sent a letter to John which was made to appear like a court pleading. 18 Commissioner Funa found that respondent instead of using his law firm's letterhead instead made it appear that the letter was a court pleading, which was designed to mislead John, who is not a lawyer. 19 Accordingly, Commissioner Funa recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eight (8) months 20 for the improper use of court processes and pleadings.

In its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-630 21 dated December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of Commissioner Funa, with modification by lowering the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from eight (8) months to one (1) month: 22

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution a [sic] Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent guilty of [sic] Rules 1.01, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his improper use of court processes and pleadings, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month.23

Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 24 questioning the above finding of the IBP. Respondent primarily contends that the letter he sent out to John, was supposedly in the nature of a Notice of Lis Pendens, and was merely intended to serve notice of the decision in Civil Case No. CEB-27717. 25

After the submission of complainant's Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration, 26 the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2012-546 27 dated December 14, 2012 which resolved to deny respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-630. ATICcS

Report and Recommendation of the OBC

In a Resolution dated October 10, 2016, this Court referred the instant administrative case to the OBC for evaluation, report and recommendation. 28

The OBC similarly found no basis to hold respondent administratively liable for the acts complained of save for respondent's act of sending a letter couched as a pleading to Luym, who was not a party to the civil case, informing the latter of the RTC's Decision. The OBC concurred with the observations and findings of the IBP that respondent's act of using the caption of a pleading was intended to make the letter itself, appear like a pleading. 29

We note the findings of the IBP Commissioner that it does not find any basis, except in one to hold respondent accountable for the attributed acts of misconduct. We agree with the Commissioner's findings that respondent can not be held liable for his theories on the case no matter how absurd or erroneous they may be. It is up to the Courts to decide. Lawyers, like respondent make all kinds of motions but at the end of the day it is still the judge who decides whether to grant or deny them. Thus, the propriety of the motions is for the courts to determine.

However, the letter addressed to Mr. John Luym was made to appear like a court pleading, said letter is a clear misuse of court processes and pleadings. This matter was not addressed in the Indirect contempt Case.

The said letter appears as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

We agree with the observations of the Investigating Commissioner that this is supposed to be a letter coming from their law firm but it appears like a court pleading because it used the caption of the "Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 24, Cebu Cit[y.]"

A letter to a client should be in a stationary using the letter head of the law firm of a lawyer and not in a form of a pleading with caption. It is explicit under Rule 7, Section 1 that a caption is part of a pleading and is defined under the rules as:

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, what the respondent used is a caption of a pleading and not a letter. If the intention was merely to inform or give notice to Mr. John Luym as to the existence of a decision in Civil Case No. 27717 (as what respondent claims), he should have written it in a letter form and attach a copy of the decision instead. The use of a caption will tend to mislead the reader that such document is a pleading addressed to the court and not a letter intended to him/her.

Although respondent stated that the IBP included in its Report that such a move is not sanctioned by the Rules of court, and that this is a clear deception.

xxx xxx xxx

We do not find the explanation of respondent that the subject letter is clearly in the nature of a Notice of Lis Pendens. Respondent's explanation is that it simply served notice to the addressee (a corporation) as to the existence of the decision in Civil Case No. 27717 finding a stockholder thereof, as a mere trustee of the shares of stocks and properties recorded in his name in the corporation. But in the present case, a Notice of Lis Pendens is not applicable. Thus, it should not use the said form under Rule 13, Section 14, it is stated that: TIADCc

xxx xxx xxx

The contention of respondent that the addressee of the letter, Mr. John Luym, never complained of being deceived by the said letter and that it is the addressee who should have complained is not acceptable explanation. This is because Mr. John Luym may not even be aware of what is the proper form of the letter and what is the difference between a letter and a pleading and, as such, does not know when to complain.

We agree with the Investigating Commissioner that there were violations of Rule 1.01, Rules 10.03 and 12.04. It was acknowledged by the respondent that he intended the correspondence as a letter written to Mr. John Luym and not a pleading intended to be filed in Court. It is quite apparent that the legal form used is a pleading with a caption in consonance with the Rules of Court. It should not be used for anything else and as a lawyer, he should know very well that said form should be filed in court and a part of the Rules of Court to be observed in the legal profession. It is clear in Rule 10.03 that the duty of a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and the duty not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice is mandatory. He should not have interpreted it as the same way as it is used in a Notice of Lis Pendens because it was also stated in the Rules of Court that said Notice of Lis Pendens is used in cases involving real properties and not applicable in this case which pertains to corporations. Although the defense of respondent was that there was no injury caused and not even the addressee nor the court complained about it. However, this can not be a defense because the duty toward the court is imminent and non-observance of such is a violation in itself. In the same way that Rule 12.04 can be reiterated that "A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." The last part of this provision in misusing Court processes can be used in the case at bar because there is no reason why the respondent has to draft and send a letter to a party in a case in the form of a pleading when its intention is only to inform the party to the existence of a decision in a civil case. It is not upon the lawyer to use the caption of the Court if said document is not intended to be filed in court. Clearly, the respondent used the processes of the court in accordance with the Rules of Court in an erroneous manner. 30

Accordingly, the OBC issued its Report and Recommendation dated April 23, 2018, 31 which adopted the findings of the IBP with modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months, instead of one (1):

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective immediately with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. 32

The Issue

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

The Discussion

After an assiduous review of the records, the Court adopts for the most part the factual findings of the IBP and OBC with modification as to the penalty.

In the instant case, it is borne by the records that both the IBP and OBC found respondent administratively liable only for his act of sending a letter to John bearing the caption of Civil Case No. CEB-27717 as its header and making it appear that the same was a pleading. The IBP and OBC found respondent's act violative of Rule 1.01, Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the CPR.

To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code. Falling short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration of the surrounding facts. 33

The pertinent rules of the CPR provide: AIDSTE

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

Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility embodies the norm of conduct that should be observed by all lawyers, in that they should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

"Unlawful" conduct refers to any act or omission that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law. 34 "Dishonesty" in this regard, means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness, or straightforwardness. 35

On the other hand, conduct that is "deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. 36 "Deceitful conduct" involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good morals. 37 It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to his or her fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. 38

Accordingly, in order to be deceitful, the person must either have knowledge of the falsity or acted in reckless and conscious ignorance thereof, especially if the parties are not on equal terms, and was done with the intent that the aggrieved party act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance of the false statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his injury. 39

In the instant case, respondent sent a letter to John bearing the caption of Civil Case No. CEB-27717 as its header, despite the fact that John was not a party to the said case. Thus, the IBP and OBC concluded that such act was tantamount to misuse of court process and an act of deceit, by making it appear that John was supposedly receiving a pleading in connection with the civil case, despite the latter being a stranger thereto.

However, a reading of the contents and body of the letter sent by respondent, reveals that it is in fact simply in the nature of a formal notice to John of the Decision of the RTC in the Civil Case (albeit not final during the time).

The relevant portion of the body of the Letter states:

This is to inform your establishment that on March 16, 2005, the Court in the above entitled case rendered a decision in the above entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

xxx xxx xxx

x x x With the above quoted decision, our clients, as the beneficiaries of the trust that existed between them and Douglas Lu Ym, are giving this formal notice to your establishment that effective upon receipt of this letter, they are withdrawing whatever authority emanating from Douglas Lu Ym's being a trustee for and in their behalf, in reference to whatever interest, ownership or participation of the late Don Cayetano Ludo in the corporation which are now registered in the name of Douglas Lu Ym and in the name of those stockholders identified with him. x x x AaCTcI

In this letter, our clients make known that they will not honor the transaction entered into by Mr. Douglas Lu YM with you in the properties above mentioned, without the consent of our clients or conformity from the court which rendered the above quoted decision. 40

We find nothing in the language or content of the body of the Letter which would indicate that its recipient, John was being impleaded or being dragged into the proceedings in the civil case. On the contrary, the body of the letter is clear that it is intended to be a mere formal notice of the Decision promulgated by the RTC in the civil case (albeit not final during the time and subject to a motion for reconsideration).

However, this Court is convinced that respondent's tactic is somewhat an underhanded subterfuge intended to mislead a layperson not versed in the pleadings court documents and processes. An ordinary person upon receiving a letter of similar appearance and heading may initially be thrown in a state of panic. Respondent's conduct serves no purpose but to undermine the integrity of the courts and the entire judicial system.

Nevertheless, We find nothing in respondent's act, which would amount to dishonest or deceitful conduct which would warranting the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. Thus, We find the penalty of suspension to be too harsh and instead the penalty of admonition and stern warning sufficient given the foregoing circumstances.

Respondent's acts were merely a product of his zealousness to protect the interest of his client.

As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected to serve the latter with competence and diligence. As such, respondent is entitled to employ every honorable means to defend the cause of his client and secure what is due the latter. 41 However, a lawyer's zeal must be tempered with necessary restrictions and qualifications to ensure that only fair and honest means are employed to attain the lawful objectives of their client. 42

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Court deems it sufficient for now to merely ADMONISH respondent Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, WITH STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.

Let copies of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay as attorney, and be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court Administrator is DIRECTED to CIRCULATE this Resolution to all courts in the country. EcTCAD

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-8.

2. Id. at 3-4.

3. Id. at 559.

4. Id. at 139-157; penned by Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (now a retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. and Minita V. Chico-Nazario (now retired Members of this Court), concurring.

5. Id. at 155.

6. Id. at 158-176.

7. Id. at 3-4.

8. Id. at 210-212.

9. Id. at 563.

10. Id. at 210.

11. Id. at 303.

12. Id. at 305-306.

13. Id. at 234.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 544.

16. Id. at 259.

17. Id. at 559-564.

18. Id. at 564.

19. Id. at 563-564.

20. Id. at 564.

21. Id. at 602.

22. Id.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 565-568.

25. Id. at 566-567.

26. Id. at 577-579.

27. Id. at 601.

28. Id. at 621.

29. Id. at 631.

30. Id. at 631-635.

31. Id. at 628-636.

32. Id. at 635-636.

33. Yamon-Leach v. Astorga, A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019.

34. Saladaga v. Atty. Astorga, 748 Phil. 1, 13 (2014).

35. Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 565 (2014).

36. Saladaga v. Atty. Astorga, supra at 13.

37. Suarez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 796 Phil. 27, 35 (2016), citing Overgaard v. Valdez, 588 Phil. 422, 430 (2008).

38. Id.

39. Saladaga v. Atty. Astorga, supra note 34 at 43.

40. Rollo, pp. 210-212.

41. Pariñas v. Atty. Paguinto, 478 Phil. 239, 246 (2004).

42. Avida Land Corp. v. Atty. Argosino, 793 Phil. 210, 222 (2016).