A.C. No. 11616 - Buenviaje vs. Magdamo

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and nature of the complaint

Lito Buenviaje (Buenviaje) filed an Administrative Complaint dated December 28, 2007 against respondent Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo (Atty. Magdamo) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The case was docketed as A.C. No. 11616 (formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141).

Marital and criminal backdrop invoked in the complaint

Buenviaje alleged that he was married to the late Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje as evidenced by NSO Marriage Contract Register No. 87-13503-A.
Fe died on September 17, 2007.
Atty. Magdamo served as counsel of Fe’s sisters, Lydia and Florenia Gonzalo.
Lydia and Florenia filed a criminal case for bigamy against Buenviaje, alleging that Buenviaje was married to Amalia Ventura in 1978.

The Notice of Death of Depositor and the statements challenged

To protect the interests of the clients (Fe’s sisters) in securing monies of their deceased sibling, Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of Death of Depositor dated October 11, 2007 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-Dagupan Branch.
The Notice’s pertinent statements included:

A characterization that a “clever swindler by the name of LITO BUENVIAJE made it appear on spurious documents that he is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when in truth and in fact LITO BUENVIAJE is married to AMALIA VALERA.”
A statement that “ever since 24 August 2007, LITO V. BUENVIAJE has been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People of the Philippines versus Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365, pending in the City of Manila.”
A statement that “Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life.”

Buenviaje alleged that Atty. Magdamo untruthfully and maliciously quoted those statements to his prejudice.

Procedural history before the IBP

On December 28, 2007, Buenviaje filed the administrative complaint.
On January 9, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed Atty. Magdamo to submit his answer.
On October 23, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued its Report and Recommendation recommending that Atty. Magdamo be reprimanded.
On October 10, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-717 adopting and approving the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation with modification, imposing instead a three-month suspension from the practice of law.
On May 28, 2016, Resolution No. XXII-2016-326 denied Atty. Magdamo’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the suspension.

Buenviaje’s allegations of prejudice, lack of basis, and alleged intimidation

Buenviaje claimed he discovered the Notice’s existence in December 2007 when he inquired about the remaining balance of his joint account with Fe.
He alleged he was shocked and humiliated because bank management and personnel might have believed he was a swindler and a fugitive from justice.
He denied that Fe was never married and asserted that he and Fe were married in public civil rites in the presence of many relatives.
On his alleged marriage with Amalia Valera:

Buenviaje admitted an extramarital relationship with Amalia and that they had two sons.
When they separated and he worked overseas, he admitted that he tried to remit money to Amalia but was told he needed a marriage contract.
He alleged that someone made a marriage contract for remittance purposes and that he was told there would be no record.
He claimed that at that time, he believed that no valid marriage took place and that he was single up to the time he married Fe.

He alleged that Atty. Magdamo used dirty and dishonest tactics to ensure BPI would prevent him from withdrawing from the joint account.
He argued that referring to him as a “swindler” succeeded in intimidating BPI-Dagupan into extrajudicially “freezing” the joint account and into refusing to transact with him.
He argued that referring to him as a “fugitive from justice” led BPI-Dagupan to believe that a criminal complaint was already pending against him, when the August 24, 2007 bigamy complaint filed by Lydia and Florenia was still pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila at the time the Notice was served.
He alleged that Atty. Magdamo even made threats, as evidenced by text messages.

The text message included the statement: “Sometime in the morning of 1 October 2007, I sent text messages to Lito's last known Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) number (+639062097612) requesting him to stop his merciless plunder and to voluntarily surrender to the rule of law.”

He questioned Atty. Magdamo’s fitness to continue practicing law due to:

alleged inability to distinguish a fugitive from justice from a respondent in a criminal investigation;
alleged dirty and unprofessional tactics of calling him a “swindler”; and
alleged referring to his wife’s marriage contract as a “spurious document.”

Supreme Court’s focal findings about the challenged statements

(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether Atty. Magdamo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using abusive, offensive, or improper language in the Notice of Death of Depositor addressed to BPI-Dagupan.

Whether the imputation that Buenviaje was a “swindler” was malicious and baseless.
Whether calling Buenviaje a “fugitive from justice” was improper in light of the status of the bigamy complaint and absence of a warrant.
Whether the statements about Fe’s marital status and parentage were premature and unsupported.

Whether Atty. Magdamo violated Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by asserting as fact matters not proved and by misrepresenting the situation.

Whether Atty. Magdamo asserted as fact matters that had not been proved (including conc...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11616)
Advanced