Ngayan v. Tugade
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent lawyer, Atty. Faustino F. Tugade, alleging violations of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondent had previously served as counsel for the complainants in several criminal and civil cases, including charges of light threat, unjust vexation, grave threats, trespass to dwelling, defamation, and others. Procedural History: The case originated from a letter-complaint filed by the complainants on November 16, 1982. The respondent was required to answer the complaint by a resolution dated January 19, 1983, but failed to do so. Consequently, on May 25, 1983, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General scheduled hearings on September 26, October 17, 18, and November 24, 1983, with the respondent duly notified but failing to appear on any of these dates. The Solicitor General proceeded to make findings based on the complainants' claims and recommended disbarment. The Petition: While not a petition for review in the traditional sense, the core of the complainants' grievance, as presented to the Court, is that the respondent violated his professional duties. Specifically, they alleged he betrayed client confidence by submitting a previously discarded affidavit as evidence against them and advanced facts prejudicial to their honor and reputation by executing an affidavit supporting the adverse parties. The respondent's failure to answer the complaint and appear for hearings was also cited as a violation of court orders and his oath of office. The Court, however, found disbarment too harsh and imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent violated paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by betraying trust and confidence and demonstrating offensive personality against the complainants. Whether the respondent's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct and a violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and demonstrating despicience for his oath of office.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the respondent lawyer committed misconduct and violated the provisions of Section 3 and paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, considering the circumstances, the Court deemed disbarment too harsh and instead imposed a suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: The Court held that the respondent's act of furnishing the adverse parties with a copy of the complainants' discarded affidavit, which was then used as evidence against them, constituted a betrayal of trust and confidence, violating paragraph (e). This claim remained uncontroverted due to the respondent's failure to answer the complaint and appear at the hearings. Furthermore, the respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit that advanced facts prejudicial to his former clients, such as arguing that the crime had prescribed and that the affidavit was prepared to make the offense more grave to prevent prescription, demonstrated an act of offensive personality against the complainants, violating the first part of paragraph (f). The Court also noted the respondent's alleged act of joining the adverse parties in celebrating the dismissal of the case as a degrading act showing bias. On the violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: The Court found that the respondent's failure to answer the complaint and appear at the investigation constituted evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and demonstrated his despicience for his oath of office, thereby violating Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court and are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and their inaction indicates a lack of obedience to legal orders and a failure to conduct themselves as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who violates the duty to maintain client confidences and to abstain from offensive personality, and who fails to obey lawful orders of the court, may be suspended from the practice of law.