Case Summary (A.C. No. 4807)
Background of the Case
The complainant represented several expelled students in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549, which was pending before the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City. Respondents, acting as counsel for AMACC, were alleged to have negotiated and executed Re-Admission Agreements with some of the complainant’s clients without his knowledge. These agreements required the students to waive claims against AMACC and to cease all related legal proceedings. The complainant characterized this action as contrary to the ethical obligations of lawyers and sought disciplinary action against the respondents.
Respondents' Defense and Position
In response to the allegations, Atty. Pangulayan admitted that his co-respondents were not involved in the negotiation or execution of the Re-Admission Agreements and that they were no longer associated with Pangulayan and Associates at the relevant time. He posited that the agreements aimed to resolve an administrative case related to the students' expulsion rather than affecting the ongoing civil case. The defense presented the argument that the actions taken were separate and should not implicate the attorneys involved in the civil litigation.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The primary legal principle underpinning the complaint is Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which prohibits lawyers from communicating about a controversy with a party represented by counsel and emphasizes the duty to respect the professionalism of colleagues. The respondent attorneys’ failure to communicate with the complainant while negotiating directly with his clients constitutes a violation of this ethical obligation. The court recognized that the legal relationship and responsibilities between attorneys and their clients were compromised when the respondents bypassed the complainant.
Findings and Recommendations
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Pangulayan to be remiss in his duties, resulting in a recommendation for a six-month suspension. However, upon judicial review, the court concurred with the IBP's findings but
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 4807)
Case Background
- The case arises from a complaint filed by Atty. Manuel N. Camacho against the lawyers of Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, specifically Attys. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Hubert Joaquin P. Bustos.
- The complaint alleges a violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a party represented by counsel.
- Atty. Camacho was the counsel for expelled students from AMA Computer College (AMACC) in a civil case involving a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Quezon City.
Allegations Against Respondent Lawyers
- Complainant accused the respondents of negotiating and executing Re-Admission Agreements with four of his clients without his knowledge, thereby compromising their claims against AMACC.
- The Re-Admission Agreements required the students to waive all claims and terminate any proceedings against AMACC.
- Atty. Camacho argued that this conduct was unbecoming of legal professionals and warranted disbarment or suspension.
Respondents' Defense
- Atty. Pangulayan acknowledged that none of his co-respondents participated in t