Case Summary (Adm Case No. 1008)
Initiation of the Disbarment Case
On June 5, 1971, PLACU filed a disbarment complaint against David D.C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar, charging him with malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross immoral conduct, and disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. Following the filing, the Supreme Court required Paz to submit an answer to the complaint on June 22, 1971.
Proceedings and Investigative Findings
After the exchange of pleadings, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for thorough investigation. By January 23, 1973, the Solicitor General determined sufficient grounds to proceed against Paz, presenting a comprehensive report that included a complaint and materials gathered during the investigation. The charges focused on Paz's representation of clients with conflicting interests and gross misconduct in office.
Allegations of Conflict of Interest
The primary allegation against Paz involved his role as PARGO's Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor during an investigation into alleged graft activities against former Mayor Pablo Cuneta of Pasay City. It was claimed that Paz administered oaths, collected evidence, and later represented Cuneta in legal proceedings concerning the same anti-graft case, thus violating the principles of Legal Ethics and the Rules of Court.
Charges of Gross Misconduct in Office
In addition to the conflict of interest charge, the complaint alleged gross misconduct when Paz failed to return a set of legal documents borrowed from Atty. Brion, which were critical to the prosecution's case against Cuneta. The allegations indicated that this failure obstructed justice and hindered the efficient administration of the legal proceedings.
Respondent’s Defense
In his answer dated February 24, 1973, Paz vigorously denied all allegations, claiming he did not participate in the investigation of Cuneta's anti-graft case except to administer oaths to witnesses. He argued that his actions were within the bounds of his duties and that no proof was provided to substantiate claims against him. Paz contended that the anti-graft case was eventually dismissed, inferring a lack of merit to the charges against him.
Evaluation of Evidence and Relationship of Attorney-Client
The investigation concluded that Paz, as PARGO's Legal Officer, was privy to confidential information during the investigation of the graft case against Cuneta. The court highlighted the ethical obligation imposed on lawyers to maintain client confidentiality, establishing that Paz's prior involvement with PARGO created a conflict of interest when he represented Cuneta in related proceedings.
Court's Ver
...continue readingCase Syllabus (Adm Case No. 1008)
Case Background
- On June 5, 1971, the Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. (PLACU) filed a disbarment case against Atty. David D.C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar.
- The complainant charged the respondent with malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross immoral conduct, and/or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
- A resolution dated June 22, 1971, required the respondent to file an answer to the complaint.
Investigation Process
- After the respondent filed his answer and the complainant submitted a reply, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
- On January 23, 1973, the Solicitor General submitted a complaint against the respondent, including sixteen copies of the complaint and a transcript of the stenographic notes from the investigation.
- The Solicitor General's charges included representing clients with conflicting interests and gross misconduct in office.
Details of the Charges
Representing Clients with Conflicting Interests
- The complainant alleged that, during an investigation by the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) regarding an anti-graft complaint against ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta, Atty. Paz, who was then PARGO's Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor, improperly gathered evidence for the case while simultaneously representing Cuneta.
- R