Case Digest (A.C. No. 12457)
Facts:
Rev. Fr. Jose P. Zafra III v. Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan, A.C. No. 12457 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5128), March 23, 2020, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Rev. Fr. Jose P. Zafra III filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Jojo R. Buniel and Anna Liza M. Guirnalda in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, Branch 40. Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan was the counsel of record for Buniel and Guirnalda. While the criminal case was pending, Atty. Pagatpatan wrote a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra and asserting that Fr. Zafra’s actions were not only sinful but a “MORTAL SIN.” The letter embarrassed Fr. Zafra and led to an investigation by the Board of Consultors together with the Bishop, where Fr. Zafra was later cleared.
After being investigated, Fr. Zafra filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging Atty. Pagatpatan with violation of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (abstaining from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or lowering confidence in the legal system) and asserting that the letter was malicious and intended to intimidate him into settling the estafa case. Fr. Zafra also alleged the unauthorized practice of law by Atty. Pagatpatan because the latter had been suspended by this Court on June 15, 2005 in A.C. No. 4562 and the suspension had not been formally lifted; despite that, Pagatpatan continued to represent clients in several RTC branches in Davao.
In his defense, Atty. Pagatpatan maintained the letter was intended to assist his clients and to persuade Fr. Zafra to settle the estafa case quietly, and he denied malicious intent. He admitted, however, that he continued to practice despite the 2005 suspension, explained family exigencies, and stated that he withdrew his appearances in pending cases. The IBP investigating commissioner found no administrative liability for the letter, but concluded that Pagatpatan had willfully disobeyed the Court’s suspension order by practicing law for over thirteen y...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Pagatpatan commit unethical conduct in writing the letter to the Bishop that would warrant disciplinary sanction?
- Does Atty. Pagatpatan’s continued practice of law despite this Court’s suspension order in A.C. No. 4562 constitute ground...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)