A.C. No. 9090 - Cruz, Jr. vs. Reyes

Atty. Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr. (complainant) filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. John G. Reyes (respondent).
The complaint charged respondent with several offenses, including intentional misrepresentation, handling a case despite a conflict of interest, falsification, knowingly alleging untruths in pleadings, and unethical conduct.

The case involved an election protest filed before the COMELEC, with the case originating from the RTC of Calabanga, Camarines Sur.
Complainant alleged that respondent appeared as counsel for Mayor Rosito Velarde, even though the initial representation was with protestant Raquel “Bibi” Reyes de Guzman.
Political dynamics were at play as De Guzman was initially allied with Speaker Arnulfo Fuentebella (NPC) and later shifted allegiance to Governor Luis R. Villafuerte’s LDP, while Mayor Velarde allied with the Fuentebellas.
Atty. Roque Bello, known to represent the Fuentebellas, was involved, causing confusion when he ceased appearing for De Guzman and instead defended Mayor Velarde.

It was contended that Atty. Bello passed the case to respondent Reyes, effectively making him a clandestine partner in a case of conflicting interests.
The allegation was that by representing conflicting interests without proper disclosure or withdrawal, respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Several candidates, including former Speaker Fuentebella and complainant Cruz, filed Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) for Congress in the 3rd District of Camarines Sur.
Two other candidates, Ebeta P. Cruz and Marita Montefalcon Cruz-Gulles, were alleged to be nuisance candidates installed to confuse the electorate.

In connection with the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates, a Verified Answer was filed for Marita.
Respondent Reyes signed the pleading, despite the document being unsigned by the purported client and unnotarized, leading to questions regarding the authenticity of the verification.
During a hearing before the PES in San Jose, Camarines Sur, respondent admitted that the signature on the Answer was his and acknowledged that the document had been prepared by Atty. Bello, with allegations supplied by Marita.

Respondent explained that he had agreed to sign the pleading to accommodate Atty. Bello amidst a pressed urgency, without full knowledge of the case facts.
Upon discovering the true nature of the case and issues regarding the signing (including the absence of the client), he withdrew as counsel.
Throughout the proceedings, respondent claimed to have acted without monetary or ulterior motives and maintained that he was unaware of any fraudulent or intentionally deceptive conduct.

Investigating Commissioner Edmund T. Espina found respondent guilty of negligence and recommended a one-month suspension.
On 19 September 2007, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) approved the report and forwarded it, as required, to the Supreme Court.

On 22 August 2012, the Supreme Court adopted the IBP findings but increased the penalty from one month to one year.
The Resolution further impounded Atty. Roque Bello and Atty. Carmencita A. Rous-Gonzaga for related charges and remanded the records for further investigation.

Reyes sought reconsideration on the imposition of the one-year suspension, arguing that his negligence did not reach the level of “contumacious proportions.”
He emphasized that he was unaware of key facts initially and that his subsequent withdrawal and candid explanations mitigated his culpability.

Whether respondent’s act of accepting and signing the pleadings, in light of his limited understanding of the conflicting interests in the case, constitutes intentional misrepresentation or a willful violation of the ethical duty to avoid conflict of interest.
Whether the allegations of intentional misrepresentation, falsification, and knowingly alleging untruths in the pleadings are substantiated by clear and preponderant evidence.
Whether or not respondent’s negligence, as admitted in his failure to evaluate the circumstances fully before accepting the case, amounts to negligence “of contumacious proportions” warranting a harsh penalty.
Whether imposition of a one-year suspension, enhanced from the recommended one-month penalty, is just, considering the circumstances and the lack of clear evidence showing deliberate misconduct.