SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11431. January 25, 2017.]
PAUL MICHAEL L. TAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSELITO M. DIMAYACYAC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 January 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11431: PAUL MICHAEL L. TAN v. ATTY. JOSELITO M. DIMAYACYAC
This resolves a verified Complaint 1 for disciplinary action filed by complainant Paul Michael L. Tan (Tan) against respondent Atty. Joselito M. Dimayacyac (Atty. Dimayacyac). Tan alleges that Atty. Dimayacyac violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he falsely alleged in a motion that Tan did not comply with the compromise agreement he had entered into with Atty. Dimayacyac's client. 2
Tan is the accused in an estafa case filed by Manolita Arce (Arce) before Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. 3 Atty. Dimayacyac was counsel for Arce. 4
To settle the civil aspect of the criminal case, Tan and Arce entered into a compromise agreement, which provided for Tan's payment of amounts to Arce beginning May 27, 2014 until April 27, 2024. 5 The compromise agreement was submitted to the Regional Trial Court on May 20, 2014. 6 During the hearing, the parties agreed that the criminal case would be provisionally dismissed until Tan's full payment of the amount. 7
Tan started paying for the amounts due to Arce. His payments were evidenced by acknowledgement receipts. 8
In May 2016, Atty. Dimayacyac moved to revive the criminal case against Tan. He alleged that Tan failed to comply with his obligation based on the compromise agreement. 9
Thus, Tan filed a Complaint for disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Dimayacyac for falsely alleging that he had not been complying with the compromise agreement. 10
Complainant claims that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer must not engage in dishonest conduct and is expected to maintain high standards of ethics, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. 11 He claims that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court, and must not misrepresent the contents of a paper, language, or argument of the opposing counsel. 12 Complainant prays that respondent be imposed the necessary disciplinary action after due notice and hearing. 13
Complainant attached copies of the acknowledgment receipts issued by Arce from May 27, 2014 until June 27, 2016. 14
Complainant also attached a copy of the Motion to Revive Case filed by respondent. 15 In the Motion was the allegation that complainant failed to comply with his obligation under the compromise agreement, thus:
2. That the accused failed to comply with his obligation based on the compromise agreement entered into by the accused and the private complainant duly assisted by the respective counsels. 16
In the Resolution 17 dated August 10, 2016, this Court directed respondent to file a comment. Respondent filed his Comment 18 on September 17, 2016.
Respondent explains that initially, Arce and complainant entered into a compromise agreement, with which complainant failed to comply. 19 As a result, the case was re-raffled to Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. 20 Later, they entered into another compromise agreement where complainant would pay his obligation in monthly installments for nine (9) years beginning May 27, 2014 until April 27, 2024. 21
Respondent claims that in the meantime, the parties agreed before the Regional Trial Court that the case would be provisionally dismissed until complainant's full payment of the amount. 22 However, since the criminal case could only be provisionally dismissed for two (2) years, the parties agreed that Arce would file a motion to revive the case every two (2) years until complainant's full payment of the amount. 23 Once the full amount was paid, Arce would execute an affidavit of desistance. 24 The provision in the compromise agreement reads: ITAaHc
3. The FIRST PARTY shall consent to the provisional dismissal of the cases and shall execute and affidavit of desistance upon full payment of the amount of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY NINE THOUSAND PESOS (Php1,659,000.00). 25 (Emphasis in the original)
Respondent claims that he acted in good faith in filing the Motion to Revive and that he was merely complying with the agreement of the parties and his commitment to the trial court during the hearing dated May 21, 2014. 26 He claims that he filed the Motion to Revive to protect the interests of his client and that he did not mean to state any falsehood or mislead the court. 27 At most, he committed an oversight when he adopted a pro forma Motion to Revive because he assumed that it was understood that it was done under what had been agreed upon by the parties. 28 He points out that counsel for complainant did not oppose the Motion to Revive, and Arce executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay attesting that respondent was not motivated by bad faith and had no intention to malign complainant's reputation in the business community. 29
The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent Atty. Joselito M. Dimayacyac should be disciplined for allegedly making a false allegation in a pleading he prepared for his client.
We dismiss the Petition.
There is no prima facie case against respondent that would warrant the imposition of an administrative penalty.
Respondent sufficiently explained that the Motion to Revive was filed under what had been agreed upon by the parties before the trial court during the hearing on May 21, 2014.
During the May 21, 2014 hearing:
Atty. Fernandez:
Your Honor please, we have already stipulated in the Compromise Agreement that the accused is willing to have the case provisionally dismissed, your Honor. We have already explained to the accused the consequences of the nature of a provisional dismissal and he is amenable to that, your Honor . . . because the period as the good private prosecutor has manifested will take, I think, it's about ten years.
Atty. Dimayacyac:
Nine years, your Honor.
Court:
Well, in a provisional dismissal the case must be revived within two years from the date of the provisional dismissal. How about the rest of the period? 7 years, given the terms of the Compromise Agreement, it will last up to 9 years[.]
Atty. Fernandez:
Yes, your Honor.
Atty. Dimayacyac:
Yes, your Honor. We will be filing your Honor, a Motion to Revive the case, your Honor. I have already explained this matter to the private complainant that within two years, if there will be a provisional dismissal, within two years we have to revive, your Honor. Now, I told the private complainant that in the event that they will not be able to file the Motion to Revive, then the case will be permanently dismissed. And I was told, your Honor, that they may not result to that and they will just remind this representation to file the Motion to Revive. So, considering that reply or answer of the private complainant, your Honor, we have no other recourse but to agree to the motion of the accused that the case be provisionally dismissed, and we have to revive it, your Honor, before the end of two years.
Atty. Fernandez:
And in the same manner, your Honor, that we also explained this matter to the accused that prior to the lapse of the period for the provisional dismissal, the case will be revived, your Honor, and eventually there will be [provisional dismissal] again. So that, only after we have settled the entire obligation that the Affidavit of Desistance will be executed, your Honor, for the permanent dismissal of the case.
Court:
That is assuming that the accused will be able to fulfill his obligation under this [C]ompromise [A]greement. Because the revival could be earlier than two years should there be a violation of the condition of this Compromise Agreement.
Atty. Fernandez:
Yes, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Court:
As per this arrangement, there would be at least three revivals?
Atty. Fernandez:
Yes, your Honor.
Atty. Dimayacyac:
Yes, your Honor.
Court:
And four provisional dismissals?
Atty. Fernandez:
Yes, your Honor.
Atty. Dimayacyac: CHTAIc
Yes, your Honor. 30
Thus, respondent filed the Motion to Revive in good faith, in accordance with the parties' agreement before the court, and in order to protect the interests of his client. Lawyers are expected to be candid and fair in the filing of their pleadings. 31 In this case, there is no showing of any attempt to mislead the court or to malign the reputation of complainant as there was an understanding that the Motion to Revive would be filed every two (2) years until full payment of the obligation. Respondent's statement that complainant failed to comply with the compromise agreement may have been inaccurate, but it does not constitute dishonesty or deliberate falsehood that would warrant the imposition of a penalty by this Court.
However, respondent is admonished not to repeat this practice and to be more diligent in the prosecution of his cases. Although he may have had no intention of misleading the court, he is still expected to pursue his cases with honesty and candor. 32 His pleadings should be free from inaccuracies and oversights in order not to disregard this duty. 33
WHEREFORE, the Complaint is DISMISSED as there is no prima facie case against respondent Atty. Dimayacyac that would warrant the imposition of an administrative penalty.
Nonetheless, respondent Atty. Dimayacyac is ADMONISHED not to repeat this practice and to be more diligent in the prosecution of his cases.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 1. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 16672 and entitled People of the Philippines vs. Paul Michael Tan.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 51, Comment.
8.Id. at 2.
9.Id. at 3.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 4.
12.Id.
13. Id. at 4-5.
14. Id. at 9-34.
15. Id. at 35-36.
16. Id. at 35.
17. Id. at 43.
18. Id. at 47-58.
19. Id. at 49.
20. Id. at 49-50.
21. Id. at 50.
22. Id. at 51.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 52.
25. Id. at 68.
26. Id. at 54-55.
27. Id. at 55.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 56.
30. Id. at 69-77, TSN, May 21, 2014.
31. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10. See Occeña v. Marquez, 158 Phil. 249, 262 (1974) [Per J. Antonio, Second Division].
32. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10. See Occeña v. Marquez, 158 Phil. 249, 262 (1974) [Per J. Antonio, Second Division].
33. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10.