Title
Supreme Court
Cruz, Jr. vs. Reyes
Case
A.C. No. 9090
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2016
Lawyer reprimanded for negligence in handling election case; cleared of conflict of interest and falsification due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9090)

Background of the Case

This case arises from a petition for disbarment filed by Atty. Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr. against Atty. John G. Reyes, alleging various acts of professional misconduct including intentional misrepresentation, conflict of interest, and unethical behavior. The complaint details numerous incidents, including involvement in a political election protest case and the submission of allegedly false documents.

Allegations of Misconduct

The first notable incident involved Atty. Reyes representing Mayor Rosito Velarde in an election protest case against Raquel Reyes De Guzman. Reyes allegedly took on this representation while another attorney, Atty. Roque Bello, was initially counsel for De Guzman but later vacated his role without formally withdrawing. It was claimed that Reyes' participation constituted a conflict of interest, violating professional responsibility standards regarding representation of conflicting interests.

Specific Incidents Detailed

In the second incident, involving a petition to declare two additional candidates as nuisance candidates, it was reported that Atty. Reyes admitted to signing a Verified Answer on behalf of Marita Montefalcon Cruz-Gulles, who later denied ever hiring him. The allegations suggest that both respondents and Atty. Bello engaged in deceptive practices to mislead the election bodies, with Reyes claiming he was unaware of the specifics of the case and acted under the supposed urgency of Atty. Bello’s requests.

Investigatory Findings and Recommendations

Investigating Commissioner Edmund T. Espina found Atty. Reyes guilty of negligence which was termed as "negligence of contumacious proportions" and recommended a suspension of one month. The final recommendations included reprimanding Reyes for failing to perform due diligence before accepting the case.

Court's Original Resolution

On August 22, 2012, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of the IBP but increased the suspension period from one month to one year. It was also instructed to investigate further the roles of Atty. Bello and Atty. Rous-Gonzaga in the case.

Motion for Reconsideration

Atty. Reyes subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the suspension period, asserting that while he should have been more cautious, his negligence did not rise to the level of willful misconduct or intention to deceive.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in Atty. Reyes' motion, concluding that the evidence presented did not convincingly establis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.