Case Summary (A.C. No. 7298)
Petitioner
Fernando Martin O. Pena, alleging unethical and threatening conduct by Atty. Aparicio in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio, who authored and sent the demand letter and later filed counterclaims against complainant’s counsel.
Key Dates
• August 2005 – Mediation/conciliation conference before the NLRC; demand for separation pay.
• 10 August 2005 – Deadline set in respondent’s demand letter.
• 6 December 2005 – Mandatory IBP conference; respondent’s no-show.
• 26 May 2006 – IBP Board of Governors dismisses complaint for lack of certification against forum shopping.
• 18 August 2006 – Respondent’s motion for reconsideration with damages claim.
• 10 July 2006 – IBP transmits resolution to the Supreme Court.
• 25 June 2007 – Supreme Court resolution.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (disciplinary power over the Bar)
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 19, Rule 19.01
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7, Section 5 (Certification against forum shopping)
• Administrative Circular No. 04-94 (certification requirement)
Relevant Factual Background
Complainant received notice of an NLRC mediation conference initiated by his company’s former employee, Grace C. Hufana. At the conference, respondent claimed separation pay on Hufana’s behalf. When complainant rejected the claim, respondent sent a letter demanding payment by 10 August 2005 and threatening to file criminal charges for tax evasion, falsification of documents, and invoking administrative sanctions if the demand was unmet.
Procedural History before the IBP
Complainant filed an administrative complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, alleging Rule 19.01 violations. Respondent answered with a motion to dismiss, counterclaims for damages, and allegations of malpractice by complainant’s counsel. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for complainant’s failure to file a certification against forum shopping, a recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on 26 May 2006. Complainant then petitioned the Supreme Court for review, asserting due process violations and attachment of the missing certificate.
Issue on Certification against Forum Shopping
The Court observed that the certification requirement aims to prevent multiple actions on identical issues across different tribunals. Given the sui generis nature of disciplinary proceedings—initiated motu proprio or upon verified complaint against a lawyer—the risk of conflicting proceedings is minimal. Moreover, complainant subsequently filed the required certification. The Court held that the initial omission did not warrant dismissal and that remand would unduly delay resolution of the ethical charges.
Analysis of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 Violation and Blackmail
Canon 19 obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest means and prohibits presenting or threatening baseless criminal charges to gain
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7298)
Facts
- Fernando Martin O. Pena, President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic), received a Notice of Mediation/Conciliation from the NLRC in August 2005 after Grace C. Hufana filed an illegal dismissal complaint.
- Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared for Hufana and reiterated her claim for separation pay during the conciliation conference.
- Complainant rejected the separation‐pay claim as baseless and sent Hufana notices to explain her absences and return to work.
- In reply to the return‐to‐work notice, respondent wrote a demand letter threatening that, if payment was not made by August 10, 2005, he would:
- File and claim larger sums including moral damages “to the tune of millions.”
- Bring multiple criminal charges for tax evasion, falsification of documents, and seek cancellation of the company’s business license.
- Believing the threats to be unfounded and unethical, Pena filed an administrative complaint with the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 (threatening to present unfounded criminal charges).
Procedural History
- Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader, Motion to Dismiss, and Counterclaims, targeting both Pena’s counsel Atty. Jocson and Pena himself.
- Respondent sought P400,000,000 in damages against Pena and the disbarment of Atty. Jocson for alleged malpractice in notarizing and filing the complaint.
- A mandatory conference was set on December 6, 2005; respondent failed to appear. Both parties were ordered to submit position papers.
- Investigating Commissioner San Juan found Pena failed to file a position paper timely and omitted a certification against forum shopping, recommending dismissal.
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted this Report and Recommendation on May 26, 2006, and the Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted the case to the Supreme Court on July 10, 2006.
- Respondent moved for reconsideration on August 18, 2006, reiteratin