Garcia v. Lopez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia was the counsel for the late Angelina Sarmiento in LRC Case No. 05-M-96, seeking registration of title over a large tract of land. The RTC decision granting the title was upheld by the Supreme Court and became final. An order was issued directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate of title. When the LRA failed to comply, complainant filed a motion to cite the LRA administrator in contempt. Procedural History: On September 19, 2002, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez filed an entry of appearance and motion for postponement, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento. Complainant was surprised as he had not withdrawn from the case and alleged respondent misrepresented himself as counsel for all heirs and failed to mention complainant as the counsel of record. Complainant argued this was an attempt to "unfairly harvest" the fruits of his labor since 1996. The Petition: Complainant charged respondent with violation of his oath, misrepresentation, and perjury, praying for suspension or disbarment. It was established that Angelina Sarmiento was succeeded by several compulsory heirs. Complainant presented an affidavit from two heirs stating they did not engage respondent's services and recognized complainant as their counsel. Respondent claimed he was only representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku, who sought his services on September 19, 2002, and needed representation for a hearing the next day. He admitted it was an honest mistake not to list his clients' names and denied intent to misrepresent.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez committed misrepresentation and violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent encroached upon the professional employment of complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the IBP but modified the penalty. Respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is warned that repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misrepresentation and violation of lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that respondent was guilty of misrepresentation. By filing an entry of appearance for "compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento" when he was merely representing some of the heirs and not all of them, he deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. This act violated his lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court." Furthermore, Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) mandates that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Respondent's failure to specify the individuals he was representing constituted a violation of this rule. The Court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court with peculiar duties and responsibilities, bound to act honorably, fairly, and candidly. On the issue of encroachment upon professional employment: The Court found that respondent violated Canon 8 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their professional colleagues. Specifically, Rule 8.02 states that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer. Respondent made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento, which was unfair to complainant, who had been working on the case since 1996 and had not been discharged. Even if complainant's withdrawal was not formal, respondent's lack of candor about whom he was representing undeniably encroached upon complainant's legal functions as the counsel of record. The Court stressed that even if the deception was not calculated, respondent was remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court, as the court relied on him to ascertain the truth.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who files an entry of appearance for "compulsory heirs" when representing only some of them, without disclosing this fact, commits misrepresentation and violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canons 8 and 10, and Rules 8.02 and 10.01.