Case Digest (A.C. No. 6289)
Facts:
Julian Malonso v. Atty. Pete Principe, A.C. No. 6289, December 16, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Julian Malonso filed a disbarment complaint on June 6, 2001 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that respondent Atty. Pete Principe entered an appearance for Malonso in expropriation proceedings instituted by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) without authority, claimed forty percent (40%) of the selling price of Malonso’s land as attorney’s fees, and later filed a motion to intervene asserting co-ownership of the property.
Respondent answered that his law firm had been engaged by SANDAMA, Inc. (Samahan ng mga Dadaanan at Maapektuhan ng NAPOCOR), through its president Danilo Elfa, under a Contract of Legal Services dated April 1, 1997, which provided for contingent fees of up to 40% of the selling price and encompassed negotiation, legal documentation and court attendance. Respondent further asserted that Malonso was a member of SANDAMA and had executed a special power of attorney (SPA) in favor of Elfa authorizing him to negotiate and represent Malonso in dealings with NAPOCOR.
Malonso countered that the SPA bore a later date (November 27, 1997) than the contract between respondent and SANDAMA (April 1, 1997) and that he had separately retained Atty. Benjamin Mendoza, so he never authorized Elfa to hire counsel for him. The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Julio C. Elamparo, compiled a chronology: NPC instituted expropriation early 1997; contract with SANDAMA dated April 1, 1997; Malonso’s SPA on November 27, 1997; NPC’s Board approved an amicable settlement on December 21, 1999; respondent filed motions and notices in January–April 2000 (motion to separate legal fees, notice of entry of appearance, notice of attorney’s lien, notice of adverse claim); respondent sought leave to intervene on November 20, 2000; and filed opposition to the compromise in February 2001, conduct that delayed implementation of the compromise agreement.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and violations of Canon 3 Rule 3.01, Canon 10 Rule 10.01 and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended two (2) years suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVI-2003-241 dated October 25, 2003, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report with modification and suspended respondent for one (1) year.
Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing procedural defects in the IBP action (investigation exceeded the three-month time limit under Rule 139-B S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XVI-2003-241 suffer from procedural infirmities—specifically, failure to secure a formal vote and the requisite majority and an investigator’s failure to terminate the investigation within three months without proper extension—so as to render the resolution void?
- On the merits, did respondent’s acts (entering appearance, claiming attorneys’ liens and adverse claims, and moving to intervene) constitute gross or serious misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of l...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)