Case Summary (A.C. No. 10992, 10993)
Background of Complaint
Two separate administrative cases for disbarment were filed against Atty. Edwin M. Alaestante, initiated by various complainants who charged him with multiple violations including gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and infidelity to clients. The complainants asserted that Atty. Alaestante engaged in unethical practices by writing a prejudicial letter to then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima, thereby allegedly harming the reputations of the complainants and violating professional guidelines.
Contents of the Letter
The contentious letter dated January 3, 2012, requested a preliminary investigation into allegations against Cynthia V. Yumang, claiming she was involved in syndicated estafa, qualified theft, and grave threats. Atty. Alaestante’s letter suggested that due to Cynthia's considerable influence in Marikina City, the complainants feared they wouldn't receive justice in the local venue. This highlighted the potential conflict of interest given his later involvement in representing some of the complainants in related legal matters.
Libel Action Against Respondent
Cynthia and Rodolfo Yumang subsequently filed a libel complaint against Atty. Alaestante, alongside his clients Ernesto and Danilo, claiming that the January 3 letter contained false and defamatory statements. Atty. Alaestante admitted authorship but maintained it was a privileged communication intended to uphold the legal interests of his clients, a stance which was contested by the complainants.
Investigatory Findings
Based on evidence, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig found ample grounds to indict Atty. Alaestante and others for libel, while the DOJ later dismissed the complaints lodged against the Yumangs. Still, this legal scrutiny led to separate disbarment complaints against Alaestante for his actions. The complaints highlighted his breach of the Lawyer’s Oath and the principles laid out in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly concerning conflicts of interest.
Role of the Investigating Commissioner
In September 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for the disbarment case filed by Cynthia and Rodolfo, and a one-year suspension for the case involving Berlin and Higino Gabertan. The findings emphasized that Atty. Alaestante exhibited gross misconduct by preparing and sending a defamatory letter and by representing conflicting interests without proper disclosure or consent.
Recommendations by the IBP-Board of Governors
The IBP adopted the recommendations but modified the penalties, proposing a one-year suspension for the case involving Cynthia and an increased two-year suspension for the case concerning Berlin and Higino, to be served successively. This represented a more stringent response to respondent’s violations, emphasizing the seriousness of the ethical breaches.
Court’s Ru
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10992, 10993)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves two administrative disbarment complaints filed against Atty. Edwin M. Alaestante by Rodolfo M. Yumang, Cynthia V. Yumang, Arlene Tabula, Berlin V. Gabertan, and Higino Gabertan.
- The complaints allege multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, malpractice, and infidelity to the client.
Facts of the Case
- On January 3, 2012, Atty. Alaestante wrote a letter to then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima requesting a preliminary investigation against Cynthia V. Yumang and others for crimes including syndicated estafa and qualified theft.
- The letter expressed the complainants' concerns about the inability to obtain justice due to Cynthia's influence and political clout in Marikina City.
- On the same day, the clients of Atty. Alaestante, Ernesto S. Mallari and Danilo A. Rustia, Jr., filed a joint complaint affidavit against the Yumangs.
- In response to the letter, Cynthia and Rodolfo Yumang filed a libel complaint against Atty. Alaestante, Ernesto, and Danilo.
- Atty. Alaestante acknowledged he authored the letter but argued it was not libelous, claiming it was privileged communication meant to protect his clients.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause to indict Atty. Alaestante for libel, while the DOJ dismissed the complaint against the Yumangs for lack of merit.
- The Yumangs subsequently filed two separate disbarment complai