A.C. No. 6273 - Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Paguinto

On June 21, 2001, an Information for Estafa was filed against Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa (complainant) and others based on a joint affidavit-complaint prepared and notarized by Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto (respondent).
The joint affidavit-complaint failed to indicate the complainant’s involvement, prompting her to file a Motion to Quash the Information, which was granted by the trial court.
Respondent’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of the quashing decision was denied.
Additionally, respondent filed six other criminal complaints against the complainant for alleged violations of Article 31 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code), which he later withdrew.

On October 10, 2001, as Chairperson of General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), the complainant received a Notice of Special General Assembly scheduled for October 14, 2001. The notice, signed by respondent, indicated plans to consider the removal of four Board of Directors, including herself and the General Manager.
At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly, presided over by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (who was not a member of the then-current Board), Gerango—complainant’s predecessor as Chair—declared himself Chair, appointed replacements for the removed directors, and elevated respondent as Board Secretary.
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over GEMASCO’s office, premises, pump houses, and water facilities. They subsequently sent formal letter-notices to the complainant and the removed directors, informing them of their removal and directing them to cease discharging their duties.

On October 16, 2001, the complainant filed a complaint with the CDA-Calamba for annulment of the Special General Assembly proceedings.
The Acting Regional Director of the CDA, via a Resolution dated February 21, 2002, declared the questioned general assembly null and void for violating both GEMASCO’s By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the Philippines.
The CDA resolution was later vacated due to lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant initiated a disbarment complaint against respondent alleging numerous breaches, including:

Promoting or initiating a groundless, false, or unlawful suit, and giving aid and consent to the same.
Disobeying laws and displaying disrespect for both legal processes and the legal profession.
Failing to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, including engaging in harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Violating his professional duty under Canon 19 which mandates that a lawyer represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Damaging not only GEMASCO but also the broader water-consuming community.

Despite being granted an extension of time to file a comment on the complaint, respondent failed to do so, and subsequently did not comply with the Court’s show-cause order.

The Court referred the disbarment complaint to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
During the mandatory conference before the IBP:

The complainant raised issues regarding respondent’s alleged violations of several professional responsibilities under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canons 1, 8, 10, and 19, as well as Rule 12.03.
Respondent’s counsel proposed that the allegations should determine whether misconduct had indeed been committed.

Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 8, and 10, and Rule 12.03.
Given respondent’s prior six-month suspension for a similar offense involving misleading a client and accepting an improper fee, a more severe penalty was deemed necessary.

The Court observed that respondent had colluded with Gerangco in the illegal takeover of the GEMASCO Board and facilities, violating the Cooperative Code and GEMASCO By-Laws.
Respondent’s filing of unfounded criminal complaints and failure to file timely comments—despite an extension and subsequent orders—were seen as clear violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 12.03.
The Court, noting respondent’s repeated misconduct and lack of reformation, imposed a disciplinary sanction: Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto is suspended from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately.
The decision was ordered to be disseminated to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the IBP, and all courts for proper guidance and record.

Whether respondent’s actions in orchestrating the illegal takeover of GEMASCO’s Board of Directors and facilities violated:

Whether respondent’s initiation of groundless criminal complaints and his failure to file a required comment after an extension constituted violations of:

Canon 1, which underscores a lawyer’s obligation to support the Constitution and obey the law.
Canon 8, which requires courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues.
Canon 10, emphasizing a lawyer’s duty of candor, fairness, and good faith in dealings with the court.
Canon 19, mandating that a lawyer zealously represent his client within the bounds of the law.
Rule 12.03, which obligates timely submission of pleadings, memoranda, or briefs once an extension has been granted.

Whether respondent’s overall conduct, as alleged, merits disciplinary sanctions including suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.