Title
Pitcher vs. Gagate
Case
A.C. No. 9532
Decision Date
Oct 8, 2013
A lawyer’s improper legal advice, abandonment of a client’s case, and unethical actions led to a three-year suspension and fee restitution.
A

Case Digest (A.C. No. 9532)

Facts:

Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher, the complainant, alleged that her husband, David B. Pitcher, a British national who died on June 18, 2004, owned forty percent of the shares in Consulting Edge, Inc., a domestic corporation, and that she engaged Atty. Rustico B. Gagate, the respondent, to settle her late husband's business interests in the Philippines. On June 22, 2004, the parties met with Katherine Moscoso Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss David's interest, and a meeting was later set for June 28, 2004. Prior to that meeting, respondent persuaded complainant to place a paper seal on the office door of Consulting Edge and, when Bantegui locked the office and refused to turn over a duplicate key, respondent caused the change of the office door lock without Bantegui's consent, thereby preventing employees from entering and conducting company operations. Bantegui filed a complaint for grave coercion with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati, which issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2004 (noted November 18, 2004) finding probable cause and led to the filing of an Information in Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, docketed as Criminal Case No. 337985, with warrants issued. Respondent advised complainant to go into hiding and, after receiving an acceptance fee of P150,000.00 pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 17, 2005, purportedly to file criminal and civil cases against Bantegui, respondent abandoned the criminal case and ceased communicating with complainant. Complainant filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline, docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1689. Respondent defaulted throughout the administrative proceedings, failed to file an answer despite IBP directives and notices for mandatory conference on November 24, 2006 (reset January 12 and February 2, 2007), and did not appear at conferences; Investigating Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation on March 18, 2009 finding violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending six months' suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted in Resolution No. XX-2011-261 dated November 19, 2011. The Court noted the IBP resolution on October 8, 2012 and referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which on February 6, 2013 recommended a three-year suspension and the return of the P150,000.00 acceptance fee; the Court promulgated its decision on July 14, 2014.

Issues:

Did respondent Atty. Rustico B. Gagate violate the ethical duties of a lawyer by improperly advising and acting for complainant, including placing a paper seal and changing the office lock of Consulting Edge and advising complainant to go into hiding, and by abandoning complainant during the pendency of the grave coercion case? Should respondent be disciplined, and if so, what penalty is appropriate? Is respondent required to return the P150,000.00 acceptance fee received from complainant?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.