Title
Buenviaje vs. Magdamo
Case
A.C. No. 11616
Decision Date
Aug 23, 2017
Atty. Magdamo suspended for 3 months after making false, malicious statements in a Notice of Death, violating professional ethics and undermining legal integrity.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)

Facts:

  1. Marriage and Death of Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje

    • Lito Buenviaje (complainant) was married to Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje, as evidenced by an NSO-issued Marriage Contract Register No. 87-13503-A. Fe died on September 17, 2007.
  2. Criminal Case for Bigamy

    • Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo (respondent) represented Fe’s sisters, Lydia and Florenia Gonzalo, who filed a criminal case for bigamy against Buenviaje. They alleged that Buenviaje was already married to Amalia Ventura in 1978, making his marriage to Fe invalid.
  3. Notice of Death of Depositor

    • Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of Death of Depositor to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-Dagupan Branch, where Buenviaje and Fe had a joint account. The Notice contained allegations that Buenviaje was a "clever swindler," a "fugitive from justice," and that Fe "never had a husband or child in her entire life."
  4. Buenviaje’s Allegations

    • Buenviaje claimed that Atty. Magdamo’s statements in the Notice were false, malicious, and intended to humiliate him. He denied being married to Amalia Ventura, admitting only to an extramarital relationship with her. He also denied being a fugitive, as the criminal case for bigamy was still pending before the prosecutor’s office.
  5. Administrative Complaint

    • Buenviaje filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Magdamo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and Rule 19.01.
  6. IBP Findings

    • The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a reprimand for Atty. Magdamo but later modified this to a three-month suspension from the practice of law.

Issue:

  1. Whether Atty. Magdamo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false and malicious statements in the Notice of Death of Depositor.
  2. Whether Atty. Magdamo’s actions constituted unethical and unprofessional conduct warranting disciplinary action.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s resolution and suspended Atty. Magdamo from the practice of law for three months. The Court found that Atty. Magdamo violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, and improper language in his Notice to BPI-Dagupan.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.