~Ifc uf tIft 'lfilipptmJ~uprmu QIaurt

@ffia .af tire QI.aurt ~inistratDr. c#LnU-

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 177-2003

TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURTOF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUITTRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THEOFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLICDEFENDERS OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OFTHE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FORTWO (2) YEARS OF ATTY. RAFAEL G. SUNTAy1

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunderis the Decision of the Court En Bane dated August 7, 2002 in Adm. CaseNo. 1890, to wit:

This Complaint for disbarment was filed by Federico C.Suntay against his nephew, Atty. Rafael G. Suntay, allegingthat respondent was his legal counsel, adviser and confidantwho was privy to all his legal, financial and political affairsfrom .1956 to 1964. However, since they parted ways becauseof politics and respondent's overweening political ambitions in1964, respondent had been filing complaints and cases againstcomplainant, making use of confidential information gainedwhile their attorney-client relationship existed, and otherwiseharassing him at every turn.

Complainant enumerated the following cases filed byrespondent to harass him: (a) Civil Case No. 4306-M1 forinjunction and damages in 1975, "Carlos Panganiban v. Dr.Federico Suntay," where respondent appeared as counsel forthe plaintiff involving fishponds which respondent hadpreviously helped to administer; (b) Civil Case No. 4726-M,2"Narciso Lopez v. Federico Suntay," in 1970 where respondentappeared as counsel for the plaintiff to determine the realcontract between the parties likewise involving the two (2)

I Of the then CFI-Bulacan.I .

2 Also of the CFI-Bulacan

fishponds which respondent had previously helped toadiminister; (c) Civil Case No. 112764,3 "Magno Dinglasan v.Federico Suntay," for damages where respondent appeared ascounsel for the plaintiff, and, (d) I.S. No. 77-1523, "MagnoDinglasan vs. Federico Suntay," for false testimony and graveoral defamation before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal ofBulacan involving complainant's same testimony subject of thecomplaint for damages in Civil Case No. 112764.

In addition, complainant alleged that respondentrelentlessly pursued a case against him for violation of PD No.2964 for the alleged disappearance of two (2) creeks traversingcomplainant's fishpond in Bulacan covered by TCT No. T-15674. Complainant alleged that respondent's possession andexamination of the TCT and the blueprint plan of the propertywhile he was still counsel for complainant provided him withthe information that there used to be two (2) creeks traversingthe fishpond, and that since respondent helped in theadministration of the fishpond, he also came to know that thetwo (2) creeks had disappeared.

Required to answer the charges respondent filed a"Motion to Order Complainant to Specify His Charges"alleging that complainant failed to specify the alleged"confidential information or intelligence" gained by him whilethe attorney-client relationship existed but which he allegedlyused against complainant when the relationship terminated.Complainant filed his Comments thereon as required in ourResolution of 26 July 1978. Thereafter this case was referred tothe Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation,report and recommendation in our Resolution dated 23 October1978.

After almost four (4) years the OSG submitted its Reportand Recommendation dated 14 October 1982 enumerating thefollowing findings against respondent, to wit:

The evidence presented by complainant which waslargely unrebutted by respondent establish two counts ofmalpractice against respondent, one count of violating theconfidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and one countof engaging in unethical conduct.

1. Respondent committed malpractice when herepresented Magno Dinglasan in the case for falsetestimony and grave oral defamation filed by Magno

3 Of the the CFI-Manila.4 Directing all Persons, Natural or Juridical, to Tenounce Possession and Move Out of Portions of Rivers,Creeks, Esteros, Drainage Channels and Other Similar Waterways Encroached Upon by Them andPrescribing Penalty for Violation Hereof.

Dinglasan against complainant before the Office of theProvincial Fiscal of Bulacan (1.S. No. 77-1523).

The case stemmed from the testimony given bycomplainant on December 21, 1976, before the Court ofFirst Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 3930-M. Whenasked why Magno Dinglasan had testified against him inthat case, complainant stated that he once declined thedemand of Magno Dinglasan, a former official of theBureau of Internal Revenue, for P150,OOO.OO asconsideration for the destruction of complainant's record inthe Bureau.

On account of that testimony, Magno Dinglasancharged complainant on July 29, 1977 with the crime offalse testimony and grave oral defamation (Exhibit G andG-1). During the preliminary investigation 0 f t he case b ythe Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, respondentacted as counsel for Magno Dinglasan. When the case wasdismissed by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacanand it was elevated to the Ministry of Justice on appeal,respondent continued to be the lawyer of Magno Dinglasan.

Complainant testified in this disbarment proceedingthat he consulted respondent, who was then his counsel,about the demand made in 1957 or 1958 by MagnoDinglasan for P150,OOO.OO as consideration for thedestruction of complainant's record in the Bureau ofInternal Revenue. Respondent's advice was forcomplainant to disregard the demand as it was improper.Later, when Magno Dinglasan reduced the amount toP50,OOO.OO, complainant again consulted respondent.Respondent I ikewise advised complainant not to heed thedemand (pp. 61-62, tsn, May 21,1981).

Respondent's representation of Magno Dinglasan in1.S. No. 77-1523 constitutes malpractice (Section 27, Rule138, Rules of Court) for respondent was previously thelawyer of complainant and respondent was consulted bycomplainant regarding the very matter which was thesubject of the case. By serving as the lawyer of MagnoDinglasan, in 1.S. No. 77-1523, respondent thus representedan interest which conflicted with the interest of his formerclient.

2. Respondent again committed malpractice whenhe served as lawyer of Magno Dinglasan in Civil Case No.112764 before the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Civil Case No. 112764 was an action for damagesfiled by Magno Dinglasan against complainant based,among others, on the same testimony that complainant gaveon December 21, 1976 before the Court of First Instance ofBulacan in Civil Case No. 3930-M.

For the same reasons set forth above, respondent'srepresentation of Magno Dinglasan in Civil Case No.

112764 constitute malpractice as thereby he representedconflicting interests.

3. In filing a charge against complainant for allegedillegal destruction of dikes, respondent violated theconfidentiality of information obtained out of a client-lawyer relationship.

In his capacity as lawyer of complainant from 1956to 1964, respondent had the following functions:

"Witness

"A: He was my lawyer from 1956 from the time hepassed the bar up to sometime in 1964 and my legaladviser on political matters and legal matters.

"ATTY. AQUINO"Q: As your lawyer from 1956 to 1964, will youkindly inform the Honorable Hearing Officer whatwas the nature of the work of Atty. Suntay?

"A: He handled my cases on the titling of ourproperties. He served as my legal counsel in theHagonoy Rural Bank of which my family is themajority stockholders. He used to help me managemy fishpond. He is our legal adviser on legal matters.He is our confidant. We have no secrets between us.He has complete access in our papers (tsn, May 21,1981 )

Complainant 0wned several fishponds in B ulacan, amongthem, the fishpond covered by Transfer Certificate of TitleNo. T-15674. The fishpond was previously traversed bytwo creeks, Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang. Theexistence of the creeks is shown by the certificate of titleand the blue print plan of the fishpond. In the certificate oftitle, the fishpond is bounded on the north and northeast bySapang Caluang and on the west by Sapang Malalim(please see Exhibit 6).

In a letter dated March 17, 1973, respondent reported thedisappearance of the two creeks to the authorities. TheChief State Prosecutor referred the letter to the Office ofthe Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan. The Office of theProvincial Fiscal of Bulacan required the Public Works toconduct a re-survey. (Exhibit 6).

In 1974, the Ministry of Public Works conducted arelocation survey of the fishpond. The relocation surveydisclosed that there were no more creeks traversing thefishpond. Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang haddisappeared.

Respondent was requested to file a formal complaint withsupporting affidavits, for violation of Presidential DecreeNo. 296. Respondent did so and the complaint wasdocketed as I.S. NO.7 4-193. (Exhibit 6).

From the foregoing facts, it is clear that respondent madeuse of the information he gained while he was the lawyer ofcomplainant as basis for his complaint for the building ofillegal dikes. His possession and examination of TransferCertificate of Title No. T-15675 and the blueprint planprovided him the information that there used to be twocreeks traversing the fishpond covered by the title. Since hehelped in the administration of the fishpond, he also cameto know that the two creeks had disappeared. Thus, hegained the data which became the basis of his complaintwhen he was a lawyer and part administrator ofcomplainant. Under the circumstances, there is a violationof professional confidence.

4. The evidence also establishes the commISSIOn ofunethical conduct by respondent for serving as lawyer ofPanganiban and Lopez x x x and for himself filingcriminal charges against complainant which were laterdismissed. The cases wherein respondent served as lawyerfor the adversary of complainant or filed by respondenthimself against complainant are the following:

1. Carlos Panganiban v. Federico Suntay, CivilCase No. 4306-M, CFI, Branch VII, Malolos,Bulacan;

2. Narcisco Lopez v. Federico Suntay, Civil CaseNo. 4726-M, CFI, Branch II, Malolos, Bulacan;

3. Magno D inglasan v. Federico Suntay, I.S. No.77-1523, Office of the Provincial Fiscal ofBulacan;

4. Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay, CivilCase No. 112764, CFI, Branch XX, Manila; and

5. Rafael G. Suntay and Magno Dinglasan v.Federico Suntay, LS. No. 74-193, Office of theProvincial Fiscal of Bulacan, for violation ofP.D.296.

While there may be validity to respondent's contention thatit is not improper for a lawyer to file a case against aformer client, especially when the professional relationshiphad ended several years before, yet under the over-allcircumstances of the case at bar it can not be said thatrespondent acted ethically. Complainant was not a mereclient of respondent. He is an uncle and a politicalbenefactor. The parties for whom respondent filed casesagainst complainant were former friends or associates ofcomplainant whom respondent met when he was serving asthe lawyer and general a dviser of complainant. The casesfiled by respondent were about properties which respondenthad something to do with as counsel and administrator orcomplainant.

x x x x x

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, undersignedrespectfully submit that the evidence establishescommission by respondent of malpractice for violating theconfidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and engagingin unethical conduct x x x X

5

Resolution of this case was delayed despite receipt of theforegoing Report and Recommendation in view of the OrrmibusMotion to Remand Case to the Office of the Solicitor Genera;.Motion to Disqualify Solicitor Rogelio Dancel to Act on thisCase and Motion to Suspend Period to File Answer dated 18January 1983 filed by respondent principally accusing handlingSolicitor Dancel of having given unwarranted advantage andpreference to the complainant in the investigation of the case.

After several pleadings 0 n the issue were filed by bothrespondent and Solicitor Rogelio Dancel, the Court in itsResolution dated 22 August 1983 denied respondent's motionto disqualify Solicitor Dancel and required the OSG to proceedwith the investigation of this case. However, no furtherproceedings were conducted by the OSG until the records of thecase together with other cases were turned over to theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 19 May 1988.

After almost three (3) years from the time the records ofthis case were turned over to it, the I BP Commission on BarDiscipline submitted to this Court on 11 May 2001 ResolutionNo. XIV-2001-169 adopting and approving the Report andRecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner findingrespondent guilty as charged. The IBP recommended thatrespondent Atty. Suntay be suspended from the practice of lawfor two (2) years for immoral conduct. In so recommending theInvestigating Commissioner adopted in toto the findings of theOSG in its Report and Recommendation dated 14 October1982. In our Resolution of 5 September 2001 we noted theforegoing IBP Resolution. However, in view of the penaltyinvolved, this case was referred to the Court En Banc for finalaction pursuant to our Resolution dated 18 January 2000, Sec.2, par. (b), in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC5

After a review of the records of this case, the Court findsthe IBP Recommendation to be well taken. As found by boththe OSG and the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent

5 Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 207-2145 Referral of Administrative Matters and Cases to the Divisions of the Court or to the Chief Justice andChairman of Divisions for Appropriate Actions.

Atty. Rafael G. Suntay acted as counsel for clients in casesinvolving subject matters regarding which he h ad either beenpreviously consulted by complainant or which he hadpreviously helped complainant to administer as the latter'scounsel and confidant from 1956 to 1964. Thus in Civil CasesNos. 4306-M and 4726- respondent acted as counsel forestranged business associates of complainant, namely, CarlosPanganiban and Narciso Lopez, the subject matter of whichwere the two (2) fishponds which respondent had previouslyhelped to administer.

On the other hand, 1.S. No. 77-1523 for false testimonyand grave oral defamation before the Office of the ProvincialFiscal of Bulacan, and Civil Case No. 112764 for damagesbefore the then Court of First Instance of Manila, were filed inbehalf of Magno Dinglasan, a former Bureau of InternalRevenue (BIR) official, regarding whose alleged demand forPI50,000.00 from complainant in exchange for the destructionof the latter's record in the BIR, respondent had previouslyadvised complainant to disregard, Civil Case No. 117624 and1.S. No. 77-1523 were precisely filed against complainantbecause the latter had previously testified on the allegeddemand made by Dinglasan. Although respondent denied thatthere was ever such a demand made by Dinglasan, the point isthat his word on the matter, i.e., whether there was in fact sucha demand, would carry much weight against complainantconsidering that he was the latter's counsel in 1957 or 1958when the alleged demand was made. In addition, respondentinitiated the prosecution of complainant in 1.S. No. 74-193 forviolation of P.D. No. 2966 for the disappearance of the two (2)creeks, namely, Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang,previously traversing complainant's fishpond in Bulacancovered by TCT No. T-15674 by using information obtainedwhile he was in possession of the certificate of title and theblueprint plan of the property.

As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 21.01.- A lawyer shall not reveal theconfidences or secrets of his client except:

a) When authorized by the client afteracquainting him of the consequences ofthe disclosure;

b) When required by law;

6 See Note 4

c) When necessary to collect his fees or todefend himself, his employees orassociates or by judicial action.

Rule 21.02. - A lawyer shall not, tothe disadvantage of his client, useinformation acquired in the course ofemploYment, not shall he use the same to hisown advantage or that of a third person,unless the client with full lmowledge of thecircumstances consents thereto.

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of hisclients even after termination of the attorney-client relation.8 Ashis defense to the charges, respondent averred that complainantfailed to specify the alleged confidential information usedagainst him. Such a defense is unavailing to help respondent'scause for as succinctly explained in Hilado v. David. _9

Communications between attorney andclient are, in a great number of litigations, acomplicated affair, consisting of entangled relevantand irrelevant, secret and well lmown facts. In thecomplexity of what is said in the course of thedealings between an attorney and a client, inquiryof the nature suggested would lead to therevelation, in advance of the trial, of other mattersthat might only further prejudice the complainant'scause. And the theory would be productive ofother unsalutary results. To make the passing ofconfidential communication a condition precedent,i.e., to make the emplOYment conditioned on thescope and character of the lmowledge acquired byan attorney in determining his right to changesides, would not enhance the freedom of litigants,which is to be sedulously fostered, to consult withlawyers upon what they believe are their rights inlitigation. The condition would of necessity call foran investigation 0 f what information t he attorneyhas received and in what way it is or it is not inconflict with his new position. Litigants would inconsequence be wary in going to an attorney, lestby an unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if aninvestigation be held, the court should accept theattorney's inaccurate version of the facts that cameto him x x x x

8 Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility9 84 Phil. 569, 578-579 (1949)

Hence, the necessity of setting down theexistence of the bare relationship 0 fa ttorney andclient as the yardstick for testing incompatibility ofinterests. This stem rule is designed not alone toprevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulentconduct, but as well to protect t he honest 1awyerfrom unfounded suspicion of unprofessionalpractice x x x x It is founded on principles ofpublic policy, on good taste x x x x [TJhequestion is not necessarily one of the rights of theparties, but as to whether the attorney has adheredto proper professional standard. With thesethoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, likeCaesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate theclient's confidence, but also to avoid theappearance of treachery and double-dealing. Onlythus can litigants be encouraged to entrust theirsecrets to their attorneys which is of paramountimportance in the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, IBP ResolutionNo. XIV-2001-169 dated 29 April 2001 is adopted andapproved. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-clientrelationship and for unethical conduct, respondent Atty. RafaelG. Suntay is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)years effective upon the finality hereof.

Respondent was furnished copyresolution dated 29 July 2003.

15 December 2003.

III a

PRESBITER J. VELASCO, JR.Cou Administrator

TCB/cecild-242/ atty. suntay (susp) cir