Camacho v. Pangulayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, counsel for expelled students of AMA Computer College (AMACC) in a civil case for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. Q-97-30549), charged respondent lawyers of Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices with violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics. The respondents, as counsel for AMACC, allegedly procured and effected compromise agreements (Re-Admission Agreements) with four of the complainant's clients without the complainant's knowledge. These agreements required the students to waive all claims against AMACC and terminate all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings. Procedural History: In Civil Case No. Q-97-30549, a Manifestation was filed by respondent Atty. Regina D. Balmores for AMACC, indicating that some students had executed Re-Admission Agreements. Subsequently, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, dismissed the civil case. The Petition: The complainant averred that the respondents' actions were unbecoming of members of the legal profession, warranting disbarment or suspension. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation, suspending Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan for six months and dismissing the case against the other respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent lawyers violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics by negotiating directly with clients represented by counsel. Whether the Re-Admission Agreements constituted a violation of professional ethics.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. The case against the other respondents was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Canon 9: The Court found that respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan had full knowledge that the students were represented by complainant Atty. Camacho in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. Despite this knowledge, respondent Pangulayan proceeded to negotiate with the students and their parents directly, without communicating with their counsel. This conduct constitutes an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and a disregard of the duty owed to a colleague. The Court emphasized that a lawyer should not communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. The Court noted that respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and a member of the Bar. On the nature of the Re-Admission Agreements: The Court rejected the argument that the Re-Admission Agreements pertained solely to the administrative aspect of the controversy. The Manifestation filed with the trial court explicitly stated that the signatories to the Re-Admission Agreements acknowledged guilt for violating the AMACC Manual for Disciplinary Actions and agreed to terminate all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against AMACC arising from their dismissal. This stipulation clearly indicated that the agreements encompassed more than just the administrative aspect, directly impacting the civil case for which complainant was counsel. The Court found this to be a direct contravention of the principle that lawyers should only deal with the opposing counsel.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who communicates directly with a party represented by counsel, without the latter's consent, violates Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which mandates that a lawyer should only deal with the counsel of the opposing party on matters of controversy.