Case Digest (A.C. No. 12829, 12830) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Myriam Tan-Te Seng v. Atty. Dennis C. Pangan (A.C. No. 12829 & 12830, September 16, 2020), complainant Myriam Tan-Te Seng engaged respondent Atty. Dennis C. Pangan in September 2014 to prepare an extrajudicial settlement of her late son Patrick’s estate in Quezon City. Patrick had married April Marie Paguio in 2005, and after his 2014 suicide, his mother discovered April’s prior marriage and her daughter Patricia’s true status. Respondent drafted and published a settlement omitting complainant as heir, excluding Patrick's personal properties, and misrepresenting Patricia’s status and capacity. When complainant later filed for settlement before the RTC of Mandaluyong, respondent counter-filed for falsification of documents based on a sale deed entrusted to him and described her in derogatory terms (“devil,” “atat na atat”) in his counter-affidavit before the Manila City Prosecutor. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a one-year suspe Case Digest (A.C. No. 12829, 12830) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of Complaints
- Complainant Myriam Tan-Te Seng filed two bar complaint docketed as CBD 15-4821 (A.C. No. 12829) and CBD 16-4966 (A.C. No. 12830) against Atty. Dennis C. Pangan for alleged breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rule 138, Sec. 20 of the Rules of Court.
- In CBD 15-4821, complainant alleged respondent misrepresented heirship shares in her son Patrick’s estate, omitted material facts in an Extrajudicial Settlement, excluded personal properties, and later filed a criminal falsification complaint against her using confidential documents. In CBD 16-4966, she charged respondent with using abusive language in his counter-affidavit.
- Relevant Factual Events
- Estate Settlement Transactions
- Complainant engaged respondent upon introduction by Paz Paguio to prepare an Extrajudicial Settlement of Patrick’s estate. Meetings and email exchanges ensued; respondent quoted P 25,000 legal fee.
- Draft Settlement omitted complainant as heir, mischaracterized Patricia’s status, excluded 35% ownership in Sweetcraft Corp., and proposed minimal shares for April and Patricia.
- Subsequent Events
- Complainant hired new counsel and filed Annulment/Rescission of the Extrajudicial Settlement and Letters of Administration.
- On August 7, 2015, respondent filed a complaint for falsification of public document against complainant, accusing her of misrepresenting her civil status in a deed of sale entrusted to him.
- Respondent openly represented April in Philippine Mediation Center proceedings despite prior dealings with complainant. Certification showed respondent married April on November 27, 2015.
- Procedural History
- IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (July 31, 2017) recommended 1-year suspension for CBD 15-4821 and 6-month suspension for CBD 16-4966.
- IBP Board of Governors (October 4, 2018) adopted findings, suspending respondent 1 year (CBD 15-4821) and 6 months (CBD 16-4966).
- No motions for reconsideration or petitions for review were filed as of March 5, 2020.
Issues:
- Whether a lawyer-client relationship existed between complainant and respondent.
- Whether respondent violated Canon 15, Rules 15.02–15.03 (conflict of interest) by representing April against complainant.
- Whether respondent violated Rule 1.02 (defiance of law) by excluding complainant as heir in disregard of succession statutes.
- Whether respondent committed dishonesty under Rule 1.01 by misrepresenting the existence of patrimonial assets in the Extrajudicial Settlement.
- Whether respondent breached confidentiality (Rule 138, Sec. 20; Canon 21, Rules 21.01–21.02) by using documents entrusted by complainant to file a falsification complaint.
- Whether respondent’s description of complainant as “atat na atat” and “devil with a devil’s smile” violated Rule 8.01 (use of abusive or offensive language).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)