Case Digest (A.C. No. 10297)
Facts:
Gertrudes Mahumot Ang @ Gertrudes M. Simonetti v. Atty. Lord M. Marapao, A.C. No. 10297, March 09, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.The private complainant, Gertrudes Mahumot Ang, filed a Verified Letter-Complaint against respondent lawyer Atty. Lord M. Marapao, accusing him of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by (a) initiating frivolous suits, (b) breaching the rule on privileged communication, and (c) representing conflicting interests. The factual background began in 1998–1999 when Atty. Marapao represented Gertrudes’ husband, Venancio Ang, in numerous criminal actions against Gertrudes; those cases were later dismissed after reconciliation. In December 2001 Gertrudes engaged Atty. Marapao to represent her in two criminal cases she filed for estafa/BP No. 22 against third parties Rosita Mawili and Genera Legetimas.
In December 2009 Gertrudes learned that Atty. Marapao appeared as counsel for Eufronia Estaca Guitan and Victoria Huan in Civil Case No. 7688 (Declaration of Nullity of a Public and Private Document) filed against Gertrudes before the RTC of Tagbilaran City. From 2009 to 2011 Atty. Marapao allegedly assisted Eufronia and her niece Rosario Galao Leyson in filing more than thirty (30) criminal cases against Gertrudes for falsification, perjury, violation of the Anti‑Alias Law and related offenses. Gertrudes alleged that Atty. Marapao used confidential information from his earlier representation and that the mass filing amounted to harassment and conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court required Atty. Marapao to file a comment in a Resolution dated March 3, 2014; he submitted a Verified Comment denying misuse of privileged information and asserting that the later cases were unrelated to his prior representation of Gertrudes. On June 25, 2014, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner (Ramsey M. Quijano) found facts and recommended action; the IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution dated May 19, 2018, adopted the findings with modification and recommended a one‑year suspension only on the ground of conflict of interest, while exonerating Atty. Marapao of breach of privileged communication. The IBP denied Atty. Marapao’s motion for reconsideration on May 27, 2019....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Marapao violate the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR by initiating frivolous suits against Gertrudes?
- Did Atty. Marapao breach the rules on privileged communication (Rules 21.01–21.03, Canon 21; Rule 15.02, Canon 15) by using confidential information from his former representation of Gertrudes?
- Did Atty. Marapao represent conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR when he appeared for...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)