A.C. No. 7547 - Chan vs. Go

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7547)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

Complainant Gregory U. Chan filed a verified complaint on June 5, 2007, seeking the disbarment or imposition of disciplinary sanctions against respondents—NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras—alleging acts unbecoming to members of the legal profession.
The complaint alleged that the respondents engaged in conduct such as influence peddling, extortion, and disparaging remarks, which purportedly violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics, and the Rules of Court.

Origin and Context of the Dispute

The controversy arose from an illegal dismissal case filed by Susan Que Tiu against the complainant and his companies.
On July 18, 2003, a labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tiu, ordering the payment of backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, and attorney’s fees. This decision was later modified and affirmed by the NLRC with the additional order to reinstate Tiu with no loss of seniority rights.

Alleged Meetings and Interactions

The complaint detailed seven distinct meetings allegedly arranged between the complainant (or his representatives) and the respondents, with the following salient points:

First Meeting (September 16, 2003, at Yuraken Japanese Restaurant, Diamond Hotel, Manila):

Introduction of respondents to the complainant, his wife Jenny, his brother Glenn, and Mrs. Ban Ha.
Alleged claims by respondent Go of his “high ranking” position and his insinuation that NLRC decisions were solely drafted by clerical staff.

Second Meeting (September 26, 2003, at Akiga Japanese Restaurant, Mandaluyong):

The presence of Mr. Alfredo Lim, who was identified as a former schoolmate of respondent Go and connected to Tiu, with demands for settlement.
Discussion involving the offer of legal counsel by respondent Paras and the collection of pertinent documents.

Third Meeting (October 20, 2003, at Korean Village Restaurant, Manila):

Alleged attendance of the complainant’s company accountant, Ms. Leah Pascual, and respondent-introduced Atty. Jessie Andres.
Presentation of company documents related to payment of sales commissions, with respondent Go leaving early.

Fourth Meeting (December 2, 2003, at Akiga Japanese Restaurant, Mandaluyong):

Jenny, Glenn, and Pascual met with respondents, accompanied by Lim, Tiu, and her husband.
Respondent Go purportedly dismissed evidence presented by Jenny and insinuated that Tiu required supplementary submissions (a sur-rejoinder with photos), while goading Jenny to accede to Tiu’s demands.

Fifth Meeting (February 24, 2004, at California Pizza Kitchen, Shangri-La Plaza Mall, Mandaluyong):

Another meeting in which Jenny met with the respondents, Lim, Tiu, and her husband to negotiate settlement amounts.
Conflicting claims on the settlement sum were exchanged, with respondent Go intervening to prevent Jenny’s departure.

Sixth Meeting (March 3, 2004, at Palm Court Cafe, Diamond Hotel, Manila):

The complainant, his wife, and brother met with respondents Paras and Go (accompanied by his wife), where respondent Go assured that it would be the final meeting and a settlement of P300,000.00 would be reached.

Seventh Meeting (October 4, 2004, at Una Mas, Greenhills):

Alleged that respondent Paras arranged another dinner where he disclosed that the matter was no longer in their hands, prompting Glenn to leave in a huff after settling the bill.

Evidence included meal receipts and affidavits by Jenny Chan, Leah Pascual, and Glenn Chan recounting the events of these meetings.

Subsequent Legal and Administrative Developments

The NLRC reaffirmed the labor ruling—on September 10, 2004, with modifications—and sustained it upon a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on July 12, 2005.
Parallel legal actions emerged:

On June 5, 2007, simultaneously with this administrative complaint, Chan filed a case for Grave Misconduct against respondents with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Previous criminal actions included an Estafa case filed against Susan Que Tiu, Ramon Givertz, and Zed Metal and Construction Corporation, which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Later, in April 2007, respondent Paras filed a complaint against Chan for Grave Oral Slander, Serious Slander by Deed, Grave Threats, and Alarms and Scandals.

Respondents’ Defense and Explanations

Respondent Paras claimed that the complaint was strategically filed to leverage a criminal case he had initiated against the complainant and denied any conspiracy with respondent Go. He clarified discrepancies regarding his presence at several of the alleged meetings, characterizing them as social rather than dispute resolution gatherings.
Respondent Go refuted the allegations by asserting that:

He met the complainant and his group through mutual acquaintances and that it was, in fact, the complainant who initiated the meetings.
Any discussions held did not involve improper attempts to influence NLRC decisions, a claim supported by the subsequent judicial affirmations of the labor case.
His actions did not include extortion or the misuse of his position, and affidavits from NLRC personnel corroborated his version of events.

Court’s Commentary on the Disciplinary Process

The Court underscored that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof lies squarely on the complainant to present clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
The high threshold for proving misconduct protects the reputation of lawyers from baseless and malicious charges.
The absence of corroborative proof, coupled with the timing and circumstances of the meetings, raised serious doubts on the veracity of the complainant’s allegations.

Issues:

Whether respondents—NLRC Commissioner Romeo L. Go and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras—engaged in conduct that amounted to influence peddling, extortion, and improper, unethical practices in violation of established ethical rules and standards.
Whether the evidence presented by the complainant—including receipts and affidavits—adequately substantiated the claims of unethical behavior, or if the allegations were merely bare and uncorroborated.
Whether the charge against respondent Paras for violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility was applicable, given that he was not classified as a government lawyer at the time of the alleged acts.
Whether the timing of the filing of the complaint (almost four years after the alleged extortion or two years after the labor case resolution) impugns the credibility of the allegations, suggesting ulterior motives such as leveraging other pending criminal cases.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7547) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7547) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7547)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7547)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model