Facts:

This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Remedios C. Balbin against Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez, initiated due to alleged violations of Rule 8.02 and Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The events leading to the complaint began on December 20, 2013, when Pedrito Leal Layco, among others, filed a case against Federico Florendo Layco, et al., for Partition, Reconveyance, Annulment of Sale, and Damages, combined with a request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Tagudin-Suyo, Ilocos Sur. In this legal action, Atty. Cortez represented the plaintiffs, while Atty. Balbin defended the interests of the defendants. Balbin alleged that during a court hearing from which she was absent, Cortez took advantage of her absence and conspired with her clients to discuss a settlement, ultimately leading to the creation of a compromise agreement. This agreement was submitted to the court by Cort

...

Facts:

Background of the Disbarment Complaint

• Remedios M. Balbin, acting as counsel for the defendants, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez.
• The complaint was grounded on allegations that Cortez violated Rule 8.02 and Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Underlying Civil Case

• The dispute originated from a civil action filed on December 20, 2013, involving Pedrito Leal Layco, et al. versus Federico Florendo Layco, et al.
• The case pertained to Partition, Reconveyance and Annulment of Sale and Damages, and was pending before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tagudin-Suyo, Ilocos Sur.
• Atty. Wilfredo R. Cortez represented the plaintiffs, while Atty. Remedios M. Balbin represented the defendants.

Alleged Unethical Conduct

• During a scheduled court hearing, Atty. Balbin was absent, and Atty. Cortez was alleged to have taken advantage of this absence.
• Cortez reportedly engaged in discussions with the defendants’ clients concerning an amicable settlement.
• A compromise agreement was forged and later submitted by Cortez to the court, bearing his signature and those of the parties—but lacking the signature of Atty. Balbin.
• Balbin contended that the omission of her signature amounted to unethical conduct and demonstrated gross ignorance of the law.

Response and Explanation of the Respondent

• Atty. Cortez denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the compromise agreement was the product of extensive discussions among the parties.
• He maintained that the agreement had been duly sanctioned by the court.
• Cortez further explained that Balbin’s clients had promised to bring the compromise document to her office in Manila to obtain her signature before its submission, implying that her absence rendered the document inactive.

Administrative Proceedings Prior to the Court Decision

• On April 11, 2016, the Commission on Integrity and Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Cortez for insufficiency of evidence.
• The recommendation was based on the findings that the evidence did not support the charges brought against him.
• On August 26, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2016-390, adopting the investigation commissioner's recommendation and formally dismissing the complaint.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Cortez’s conduct—specifically, his submission of the compromise agreement without the signature of opposing counsel—constituted a violation of Rule 8.02 and Canon 9 of the CPR.

• Did his act of discussing the settlement with the clients while the counsel of record was absent amount to unethical practice?
• Was the absence of counsel’s signature material to the validity and ethical standing of the compromise agreement?

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the disbarment complaint against Atty. Cortez.

• Can the actions of Cortez, as explained in his defense, be reconciled with the stringent requirements imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility?
• Is the procedural handling of the compromise agreement consistent with legal and ethical standards expected of counsel?

Whether the findings and recommendations of the IBP should be accorded deference in dismissing the administrative complaint.

• To what extent can the court rely on the IBP’s administrative process in reaching its decision?
• Was there a cogent reason, if any, for the court to depart from the IBP’s dismissal recommendation?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)