Garrido v. Quisumbing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns allegations of professional misconduct against respondent Attorney Norberto Quisumbing. The petitioners, Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr., and Francisco R. Achacoso, seek the disbarment or suspension of Attorney Quisumbing. Their complaint stems from Attorney Quisumbing's filing of Civil Case No. 73668 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, purportedly on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor, who allegedly did not authorize such action. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed by the petitioners on September 30, 1968. Respondent Quisumbing filed an answer, asserting that he acted upon the request of Julio Muñoz, who claimed authority to represent L. Garcia Pastor. Subsequent filings included a manifestation with an additional affidavit from Muñoz, and a reply from the petitioners, followed by a rejoinder from the respondent. These pleadings and their annexes were deemed sufficient to establish the facts for the administrative case. The Petition: The petitioners, who were defendants in the underlying Civil Case No. 73668, initiated this administrative action. They contend that Attorney Quisumbing improperly filed the civil case on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor without proper authorization. The core of the dispute in the civil case involved allegations of financial mismanagement and fraudulent asset transfers within Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., purportedly orchestrated by the petitioners. The petitioners argue that Attorney Quisumbing's actions in filing the suit, particularly concerning Garcia Pastor's alleged lack of authorization, constitute professional misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent attorney committed malpractice by filing Civil Case No. 73668 without the express authorization of L. Garcia Pastor. Whether respondent attorney had sufficient basis to believe that Julio Muñoz had the authority to represent L. Garcia Pastor in filing Civil Case No. 73668.
Ruling
The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent attorney committed malpractice by filing Civil Case No. 73668 without the express authorization of L. Garcia Pastor: The Court found that while L. Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent attorney to file the case on his behalf, respondent had no reason to doubt the veracity of the information furnished by Julio Muñoz. Muñoz claimed to be the controlling shareholder of Capital and represented that L. Garcia Pastor was his alter ego on the board of directors. Respondent acted upon Muñoz's representation that he had the authority to grant such authorization. Furthermore, L. Garcia Pastor himself had not complained against the respondent attorney for his actions. The administrative proceeding was instituted by the defendants in the civil case, not by the alleged unauthorized party. On whether respondent attorney had sufficient basis to believe that Julio Muñoz had the authority to represent L. Garcia Pastor in filing Civil Case No. 73668: The Court held that respondent attorney had sufficient basis to believe in Muñoz's authority. Muñoz informed respondent that he was the controlling stockholder of Capital and that Garcia Pastor was his alter ego on the board. Muñoz authorized respondent to file the action not only in his own name but also in the name of Garcia Pastor. The records of Capital were in the possession of the petitioners herein, and respondent felt that the complaint needed to be filed without delay due to the urgency of the relief sought. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that respondent had not committed any act of malpractice.
Main Doctrine
An attorney is not guilty of malpractice for filing a case on behalf of a party if he acted upon the representation of another party, who claimed to have authority to act for the first party, especially when the attorney had no reason to doubt the veracity of such representation and the first party has not complained against the attorney's actions.