Case Summary (Adm Case No. 1008)
Factual Background
PLACU charged Atty. David D.C. Paz with malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross immoral conduct and disloyalty to the Republic arising from his activities while Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor and head of the “Charlie Division” of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) and his later appearances for Mayor Pablo Cuneta. The complaint alleged that while serving in PARGO in 1969 the respondent participated in the investigation of an anti-graft complaint filed by Dr. Irineo P. Sia against Mayor Cuneta, administered oaths to witnesses, assisted in gathering evidence including copies of the expediente of Civil Case No. 72967, and thus acquired confidential knowledge of the PARGO prosecution. PLACU alleged that after respondent’s detail as Executive and Police Adviser to the Mayor of Makati on September 10, 1969, and after his resignation from PARGO in January 1970, respondent nonetheless appeared on November 13 and 23, 1970 as one of Cuneta’s counsel during the preliminary investigation before the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office.
Procedural History
After PLACU filed the complaint on June 5, 1971 and the Court required an answer on June 22, 1971, the respondent filed an answer and PLACU submitted a reply. The administrative matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On January 23, 1973 the Solicitor General transmitted his complaint with the investigation record to the Court. The respondent filed a formal answer on February 24, 1973. The Court thereafter resolved the charges on the record and issued its en banc decision on September 29, 1980.
The Solicitor General’s Charges and Allegations
The Solicitor General charged that respondent represented clients with conflicting interests and committed gross misconduct in office. The Solicitor General’s submission recounted PARGO’s investigation of the Sia complaint, respondent’s role as PARGO’s Legal Officer and head of the Charlie Division, respondent’s alleged handling of PLACU’s copies of the expediente in Civil Case No. 72967 for xeroxing, respondent’s subsequent detail to Makati and resignation, and respondent’s later appearances for Cuneta in the preliminary investigation conducted by the Pasay City Fiscal, which PLACU and the Solicitor General asserted violated professional duties and obstructed justice.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
In his answer, respondent denied the material allegations concerning representation of clients with conflicting interests and gross misconduct. He asserted that his participation in the Cuneta matter at PARGO was limited to swearing witnesses, that Mission Order No. 362 had placed other officers in charge of the re-investigation, that he was on detail as police adviser in Makati in 1969 and resigned from PARGO in 1970 and was later transferred to Congress, and that he had been granted clearance dated January 2, 1970 absolving him of money accountability. Respondent also denied borrowing or retaining PLACU’s expediente, pointed to the absence of any receipt produced by Atty. Galileo P. Brion, and stressed that the evidence gathered in the PARGO investigation had been turned over to other PARGO lawyers.
Evidence and the Court’s Findings on Conflict of Interest
The Court found that the evidence established that respondent, while Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor and head of the Charlie Division, took part in the investigation of the anti-graft complaint against Mayor Cuneta by administering oaths to witnesses and gathering evidence, thereby acquiring confidential information about the strengths and weaknesses of PARGO’s case. The Court also found that respondent later appeared at the preliminary investigation as one of Cuneta’s counsel at its initial hearings on November 13 and 23, 1970. The Court held that those facts established a prior attorney-client relationship between respondent and the government agency, which created an incompatibility of interests and violated professional obligations.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court relied on Section 6 of the Canons of Legal Ethics and Section 20(e) of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, which require that an attorney maintain confidences and avoid conflicts. The Court invoked prior jurisprudence, notably Nombrado v. Hernandez and Hilado v. David, to underscore the rule that the mere existence of a prior attorney-client relationship and the confidential information acquired in that relation preclude subsequent appearance for an adverse client regardless of whether the information was actually used. The Court explained that the rule protects the appearance of propriety and public confidence in the profession, and that withdrawal of appearances after they had been entered did not cure the breach because th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (Adm Case No. 1008)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- PASAY LAW AND CONSCIENCE UNION, INC. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against ATTY. DAVID D.C. PAZ on June 5, 1971.
- The Court required the respondent to file an answer by resolution dated June 22, 1971, and the respondent filed an answer on February 24, 1973.
- The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation, and the Solicitor General submitted his findings and complaint on January 23, 1973.
- The administrative case was decided by the Court en banc and resulted in a disciplinary disposition against the respondent.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complaint alleged that, in 1969, while respondent was Legal Officer, Chief Prosecutor, and head of the "Charlie Division" of PARGO, he investigated an anti-graft complaint by Dr. Irineo P. Sia against then ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta.
- The complaint alleged that the respondent administered oaths, gathered evidence, and obtained PLACU's copies of the expediente of Civil Case No. 72967 during the PARGO investigation prior to September 10, 1969.
- The complaint alleged that the respondent was detailed as Executive and Police Adviser to the Mayor of Makati on September 10, 1969, and designated Atty. Rodolfo Navarro to act in his stead at PARGO.
- The complaint alleged that after resigning from PARGO in January 1970 the respondent later appeared as counsel for Pablo Cuneta during preliminary investigation hearings on November 13 and 23, 1970, thereby representing a client with interests adverse to the government.
- The complaint further alleged that the respondent borrowed PLACU’s copy of the Civil Case No. 72967 expediente to xerox relevant documents and thereafter failed and denied returning the same, thereby concealing evidence and obstructing justice.
Charges and Legal Provisions
- The Solicitor General charged respondent with representing clients with conflicting interests and with gross misconduct in office.
- The complaint invoked the Canons of Legal Ethics and Sec. 20(e) of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court as standards governing the respondent’s duty to preserve client confidences.
- The complaint characterized the alleged nonreturn and denial regarding the expediente as conduct tending to prevent and obstruct the administration of justice.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
- ATTY. DAVID D.C. PAZ denied participation in the investigation except for swearing witnesses and denied having investigative possession of or respon