Adm Case No. 1008 - Pasay Law vs. Paz

On June 5, 1971, the Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. (PLACU) filed a disbarment case against Atty. David D.C. Paz before the Supreme Court, charging him with malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross immoral conduct, and/or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
A resolution dated June 22, 1971, directed the respondent to file an answer to the complaint.

After the respondent filed his answer and the complainant submitted a reply, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
On January 23, 1973, following extensive investigation, the Solicitor General submitted the findings in a sealed envelope along with sixteen copies of his complaint, stenographic transcripts, exhibits, and the complete administrative case record.
The Solicitor General charged Atty. Paz with:

In 1969, then while serving as PARGO’s Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor, and head of the “Charlie Division” during an investigation of an anti-graft complaint against ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta, the respondent acquired confidential information regarding the case.
It was alleged that:

The respondent, as PARGO’s officer, had direct access to sensitive and confidential information pertaining to the anti-graft investigation initiated by Dr. Irineo P. Sia.
In the investigation:

The respondent enlisted the help of Dr. Sia and Atty. Galileo P. Brion in gathering evidence including PLACU’s copies of the records in Civil Case No. 72967 (Vicente D. Isip vs. The Pasay City Government, et al.).
He administered oaths to witnesses and gathered evidence while still an officer of PARGO.

Later, during the preliminary investigation by the Pasay City Fiscal on the anti-graft and technical malversation charges (filed by the CIO, PARGO’s successor), the respondent appeared as counsel for ex-Mayor Cuneta.
Although the respondent eventually withdrew his appearance as counsel, his earlier participation constituted a conflict due to his prior relationship with the government and direct involvement in the confidential investigation.
This conduct was held to be a violation of Section 6 of the Canons of Legal Ethics and Section 20(e) of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The respondent borrowed and received the PLACU’s copies of the expediente of Civil Case No. 72967 for the purpose of making xerox copies to be used as evidence in the anti-graft investigation.
Despite repeated requests by Atty. Brion, the respondent did not return these copies.

The respondent denied borrowing the said expediente.
His denial thereby allegedly obstructed the prosecution of the anti-graft case by forcing the agency to reconstitute the evidence.

The conduct was considered by the complainant as obstructive and as an attempt to conceal evidence, thus constituting gross misconduct in office.

Specifically denied the allegations related to representing clients with conflicting interests, stating that he only participated in the investigation by swearing witnesses and that he did not personally handle the evidence.
Denied the gross misconduct allegation, claiming that:

Any documents referenced were merely his personal lawyer’s file as an intervenor in Civil Case No. 72967.
He had received a clearance dated January 2, 1970 from PARGO absolving him of any pending accountabilities.
Witness testimony by Hector Lumba and admissions by Atty. Brion did not satisfactorily prove that he had misappropriated or failed to return any document.

Asserted that the plaintiff’s allegations were either based on self-serving declarations or misinterpretations of events, and that the anti-graft case against ex-Mayor Cuneta had already been dismissed.

Whether Atty. David D.C. Paz, while serving as PARGO’s Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor, and head of the “Charlie Division,” violated the ethical standards by representing clients with conflicting interests.

Did his participation in the government investigation of the anti-graft case create a confidential attorney-client relationship with PARGO, thereby precluding him from later acting as counsel for ex-Mayor Cuneta?

Whether the actions alleged related to the non-return of the PLACU’s copies of the expediente in Civil Case No. 72967 amount to gross misconduct in office.

Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of gross misconduct for failing to return documents critical to the anti-graft investigation?

Should the disciplinary sanction be limited to suspension for representing clients with conflicting interests?
Is there merit to imposing a penalty for gross misconduct in office?