Title
Suntay vs. Suntay
Case
A.C. No. 1890
Decision Date
Aug 7, 2002
A lawyer was suspended for two years after using confidential client information to file cases against his former client, violating attorney-client confidentiality and engaging in unethical conduct.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 1890)

Allegations Against Respondent

Complainant claimed that Respondent filed several complaints and cases purportedly to harass him. These included:

  1. Civil Case No. 4306-M (1975): Carlos Panganiban v. Federico Suntay, concerning fishponds.
  2. Civil Case No. 4726-M (1970): Narciso Lopez v. Federico Suntay, regarding contract disputes related to the same fishponds.
  3. Civil Case No. 112764: Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay, filed for damages.
  4. I.S. No. 77-1523: Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay, regarding false testimony and grave oral defamation.

Moreover, Respondent pursued a case against Complainant for the alleged illegal disappearance of two creeks traversing Complainant’s fishpond under Presidential Decree No. 296.

Respondent's Motion and Investigation

In response to the allegations, Respondent filed a motion requesting Complainant to specify the confidential information he allegedly misused. The case was then referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, which ultimately took four years. The OSG's report identified two counts of malpractice for Respondent, including violations of confidentiality and unethical conduct.

Findings of Malpractice

The OSG determined that Respondent committed malpractice by representing adversaries against Complainant in cases directly related to matters upon which he had previously advised Complainant. Specifically, he represented:

  • Magno Dinglasan in a case involving defamation related to testimony that Complainant provided to Respondent years before.
  • Panganiban and Lopez in cases concerning properties managed by Respondent while serving as Complainant's legal adviser.

Unethical Conduct and Use of Confidential Information

Evidence suggested Respondent derived professional advantage from information he learned during his time as Complainant’s lawyer. Despite Respondent's defense that Complainant failed to specify what confidential information was used against him, the legal principles emphasized that lawyers have an obligation to protect client privacy and confidentiality even after the termination of the attorney-client relationship.

Delay in Proceedings and Final Recommendations

Complications included various motions filed by Respondent, leading to delays in the proceedings. A resolution from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a two-year suspension for Respondent due to his unethical conduct. The case eventually advanced to be reviewed by the Supreme Court given t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.