A.C. No. 12829, 12830 - Tan-Te Seng vs. Pangan

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12829, 12830)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Myriam Tan-Te Seng
Respondent: Atty. Dennis C. Pangan

Key Dates

• Son’s marriage: September 18, 2005
• Son’s death: July 28, 2014
• Drafting of Extrajudicial Settlement: November 2014
• Complaint CBD 15-4821 filed: 2015
• Complaint CBD 16-4966 filed: 2016
• IBP-CBD Report: July 31, 2017
• IBP Board Resolution: October 4, 2018
• Supreme Court Decision: September 16, 2020

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990)
• Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
• Rules of Court, Rule 138, § 20(e)
• Civil Code (RA 386)
• Family Code (EO 209)

Complaints Filed

CBD 15-4821: Alleged violations of CPR Canons 1, 15, 21; Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 138, § 20.
CBD 16-4966: Alleged violation of CPR Canon 8, Rule 8.01 (abusive and offensive language).

Allegations in CBD 15-4821

• Respondent omitted petitioner and husband as heirs despite petitioner’s entitlement under Article 985 CC.
• Drafted settlement hiding April’s prior marriage and Patricia’s status and minority.
• Excluded Patrick’s Sweetcraft Corporation shares.
• Used documents entrusted by petitioner to file falsification complaint.
• Openly represented April against petitioner, indicating a conflict of interest.

Allegations in CBD 16-4966

• Respondent’s counter-affidavit described petitioner as “atat na ataf” and a “devil wearing a devil’s smile,” constituting abusive, offensive language.

Respondent’s Defenses (CBD 15-4821)

• Denied attorney-client relationship with petitioner due to lack of retainer and fees.
• Claimed no duty to investigate April’s prior marriage or Patricia’s legitimacy.
• Asserts petitioner approved the settlement draft and attended publication meetings.
• Denies representing conflicting interests; appearance in mediation was ministerial.
• Denies knowledge of Sweetcraft share ownership; questions petitioner’s allegations of corporate fraud.

Respondent’s Defenses (CBD 16-4966)

• Asserts language was not wrong in context of petitioner’s aggressive conduct.
• “Atat na ataf” used for lack of better English equivalent.
• Calls were descriptive, not malicious.

IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation

• Recommended one-year suspension for violations of Lawyer’s Oath, CPR Canons 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21; Rule 138, § 20.
• Found respondent hid critical succession facts, misused client documents, and represented conflicting interests.
• Recommended six-month suspension for abusive language in CBD 16-4966.

IBP Board of Governors Resolution

• Adopted one-year suspension recommendation in CBD 15-4821.
• Modified six-month suspension to respondent in CBD 16-4966.
• Elevated resolutions to the Supreme Court for final action.

Threshold Issues

Existence of attorney-client relationship.
Representation of conflicting interests.
Compliance with succession laws in drafting the settlement.
Alleged dishonesty in excluding personal property.
Breach of confidentiality by filing a falsification complaint.
Use of abusive and offensive language warranting sanction.

Ruling on Attorney-Client Relationship

• A lawyer-client relationship arose when petitioner sought respondent’s services for estate settlement, evidenced by consultations, document requests, and settlement drafting.
• Absence of retainer and non-payment of fees do not negate such relationship (Burbe v. Magulta).

Ruling on Conflicting Interests

• Respondent violated Canon 15, Rules 15.02 and 15.03 by abandoning petitioner’s cause to represent April in mediation, a clear conflict of interest without written consent.

Ruling on Succession Law Compliance

• Under Article 985 CC and, depending on Patricia’s legitimacy, Articles 997 or 1000 CC, petitioner and husband were entitled to half of Patrick’s estate.
• Respondent violated CPR Rule 1.02 by excluding petitioner as heir and disregarding mandatory succession provisions.

Ruling on Dishonesty Allegations

• No proof respondent knowingly misrepresented absence of personal property; clause in settlement could signify exclusion rather than falsehood.
• Allegation of fraudulent incorporation of AMPB Sweetcraft Corporation unsubstantiated.
• Charges of dishonesty for th

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12829, 12830)

Procedural Background

Consolidated administrative cases before the Supreme Court First Division: A.C. No. 12829 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4821) and A.C. No. 12830 (formerly CBD Case No. 16-4966).
Complainant: Myriam Tan-Te Seng; Respondent: Atty. Dennis C. Pangan.
Origin of CBD 15-4821: allegations of multiple violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and Rules of Court in connection with an Extrajudicial Settlement.
Origin of CBD 16-4966: charge of abusive and offensive language (“devil,” “atat na atat”) in respondent’s counter-affidavit before the City Prosecutor of Manila.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended one-year suspension; IBP Board of Governors adopted one-year suspension for CBD 15-4821 and six-month suspension for CBD 16-4966.
Decision promulgated on September 16, 2020.

Facts of the Case

Patrick Marcel T. Te Seng married April Marie M. Paguio in 2005; he suffered severe depression and died by suicide on July 28, 2014.
Complainant learned that April’s first marriage (June 23, 2000) to Neil Paul M. Bermundo was annulled July 14, 2003; April bore Patricia Beatrice Paguio on February 24, 2001.
Patrick acknowledged paternity of Patricia in August 2002 via affidavits submitted to the NSO.
Complainant engaged respondent in September 2014—introduced by Paz Paguio—to prepare the Extrajudicial Settlement of Patrick’s estate; quoted professional fee of ₱25,000.
Meetings held at respondent’s office and at Gloria Maris Restaurant included complainant, April and Patricia; initial settlement proposals offered Patricia ₱500,000 and minimal share to April.
Draft Extrajudicial Settlement excluded complainant as heir, omitted Patricia’s true status and minority, and failed to account for Patrick’s 35% Sweetcraft Corporation shares.
Respondent assisted April in transferring shares to AMPB Sweetcraft Corporation; such actions allegedly designed to circumvent tax and corporate laws.
Complainant filed an RTC petition for annulment/rescission of the settlement and for issuance of letters of administration.
Respondent filed a criminal complaint for falsification against complainant before the Pasig City Prosecutor, using a confidential Deed of Absolute Sale.
In CBD 16-4966, complainant charged respondent with offensive language in his counter-affidavit to the Manila Prosecutor.

Complaints Against Respondent

CBD 15-4821: Violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; CPR Canon 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.02); Canon 15 (Rules 15.02, 15.03); Canon 21 (Rule 21.02); and Rule 138, Section 20 of the Rules of Court.
CBD 16-4966: Viol