Case Digest (Adm Case No. 1008)
Facts:
Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. v. Atty. David D.C. Paz, Administrative Case No. 1008, 180 Phil. 18; 76 OG No. 39, 7165 (September 29, 1980), Supreme Court En Banc, Fernandez, J., writing for the Court.On June 5, 1971, Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. (PLACU) filed an administrative/disciplinary complaint with the Court against Atty. David D.C. Paz, alleging malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross immoral conduct and/or disloyalty to the Republic. The Court required an answer on June 22, 1971. After pleadings were exchanged the matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation; following investigation the Solicitor General filed the formal complaint and submitted the investigation record on January 23, 1973.
The complaint alleged two principal grounds. First, that while serving as Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor and head of the "Charlie Division" of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) in 1969, respondent participated in and had access to confidential information and evidence in the anti-graft investigation initiated by Dr. Irineo P. Sia against then ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta of Pasay. PLACU alleged that respondent enlisted PLACU officers in gathering PARGO evidence and even administered oaths to witnesses; thereafter, in November 1970, respondent appeared and orally argued on behalf of Cuneta during the preliminary investigation before the Pasay City Fiscal's Office, thereby representing clients with conflicting interests and violating the Canons of Legal Ethics and Section 20(e) of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court.
Second, PLACU charged respondent with gross misconduct in office for allegedly borrowing and failing to return PLACU’s copies of the expediente in Civil Case No. 72967 (Vicente D. Isip v. The Pasay City Government, et al.), which PLACU asserted were used in the Cuneta proceedings; respondent was accused of denying receipt and thereby obstructing justice by concealing evidence.
Respondent filed an answer on February 24, 1973 denying participation in the substantive investigation (beyond swearing witnesses), asserting he was detailed to serve as police adviser to the Mayor of Makati on September 10, 1969, that Mission Order No. 362 delegated investigative duties to others, that he had cleared his accounts on January 2, 1970, and that the alleged expediente had been turned over to other PARGO officers. He admitted appearing among Cuneta’s counsel but stated his appearance was withdrawn when questioned.
After reviewing the record and investigative transcripts, the Court found that respondent had indeed taken part in the PARGO investigation—administering oaths and gathering evidence—and thus had acquired confidential information and stood in an attorney-client relationship with PARGO. The Court also found that respondent appeared initially as counsel for Cuneta during the preliminary investigation and that withdrawal thereafter did not cure the impropriety. Conversely, the Court concluded there was insufficient evi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. David D.C. Paz, by participating in the PARGO investigation and later appearing as counsel for Pablo Cuneta in the preliminary investigation, represent clients with conflicting interests and thereby violate the Canons of Legal Ethics and Section 20(e) of Rule 138?
- Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the charge that Atty. Paz committed gross misconduct in office by borrowing and failing to return PLACU’s expediente in Civil Case No...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)