Macias v. Selda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant, Judge Mariano S. Macias, filed a Petition for Administrative Discipline against respondent Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the lawyer's oath. Respondent Selda initially withdrew as counsel for Norma T. Lim in an election case, citing his workload and inability to cope with the proceedings' pace. The court granted his motion. Procedural History: Subsequently, respondent Selda executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawal. He swore that he withdrew because the complainant judge had allegedly pre-judged the case and insinuated that his client would lose. This led to a motion for inhibition against the complainant judge, which was initially granted but later set aside by the Supreme Court. The complainant judge then requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to investigate respondent Selda for deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. The Petition: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent Selda to answer, but he failed to do so. After several postponements and the complainant's request to resolve the case on the pleadings, the Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, reducing the suspension to six months. The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alanixon A. Selda violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by executing an affidavit retracting his stated grounds for withdrawal, thus misrepresenting facts to the court. Whether the one-year suspension from the practice of law, as imposed by the Supreme Court, is an appropriate penalty for Atty. Selda's violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP on the culpability of the respondent. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors, suspending Atty. Alanixon A. Selda from the practice of law for one (1) year, to commence upon receipt of the Decision. He was also sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense would result in a more severe consequence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that all members of the legal profession take a solemn oath to "do no falsehood" and to conduct themselves with "all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients." These principles are enshrined in Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01, which states 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 Selda's act of executing an affidavit retracting his stated grounds for withdrawal, which was done under oath, constituted a clear misrepresentation to the court. This act directly violated his lawyer's oath and his obligation to be candid and honest towards the court. The Court emphasized that candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement for practicing lawyers, and this obligation takes precedence. Therefore, stating one thing in a motion to withdraw and another in a subsequent affidavit is a transgression that necessitates punishment. On the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court reiterated that the appropriate penalty for an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case, as provided for in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This section enumerates grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct. Considering the respondent's deliberate misrepresentation and violation of his oath, the Court found that suspension from the practice of law was warranted to protect the interests of the court, the legal profession, and the public. While the IBP Board of Governors recommended a six-month suspension, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, imposed a one-year suspension, deeming it a more fitting penalty for the gravity of the offense committed.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who makes a misrepresentation to the court, retracting a previous sworn statement with an affidavit, violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the duty of candor towards the court, and is subject to disciplinary action.