Pacana vs Atty Pascual Lopez

8/10/2019 Pacana vs Atty Pascual Lopez

1/6

EN BANC

ROLANDO B. PACANA, JR.,Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ,Respondent.

A.C. No. 8243Present:PUNO, C.J.,QUISUMBING,

N!R"S-S!N#I!GO,C!RPIO,

CORON!,C!RPIO MOR!$"S,C%ICO-N!&!RIO,

'"$!SCO, (R.,N!C%UR!,$"ON!R)O-)" C!S#RO,BRION,*

P"R!$#!, andB"RS!MIN,JJ.

Promul+ated:

(ul , //0

1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

#2is 3ase stems 4rom an administrative 3omplaint5674iled 8 Rolando Pa3ana, (r. a+ainst !tt. Mari3el Pas3ual-

$ope9 32ar+in+ t2e latter it2 4la+rant violation o4 t2e provisions o4 t2e Code o4 Pro4essional Responsi8ilit.57Complainant alle+es t2at respondent 3ommitted a3ts 3onstitutin+ 3on4li3t o4 interest, dis2onest, in4luen3e peddlin+,

and 4ailure to render an a33ountin+ o4 all t2e mone and properties re3eived 8 2er 4rom 3omplainant.

On (anuar , //, 3omplainant as t2e Operations )ire3tor 4or Multitel Communi3ations Corporation ;MCC


2/6

or? it2 o44i3ials o4 t2e !nti-Mone $aunderin+ Coun3il ;!M$C


3/6

Cand57

On (ul , //=, 3ontrar to respondentAs advi3e, 3omplainant returned to t2e 3ountr. On t2e eve o4 2is

departure 4rom t2e United States, respondent 3alled up 3omplainant and 3onvenientl in4ormed 2im t2at 2e 2as 8een

3leared 8 t2e NBI and t2e BI).5=7

!8out a mont2 t2erea4ter, respondent personall met it2 3omplainant and 2is i4e and told t2em t2at s2e 2as

alread a33umulated P6,//,///.// as attorneAs 4ees and as illin+ to +ive P,///,///.// to 3omplainant in

appre3iation 4or 2is 2elp. Respondent alle+edl told 3omplainant t2at it2out 2is 2elp, s2e ould not 2ave earned su32

amount. Over2elmed and relieved, 3omplainant a33epted respondentAs o44er 8ut respondent, later on, 32an+ed 2er mind

and told 3omplainant t2at s2e ould instead invest t2eP,///,///.// on 2is 8e2al4 in a 8usiness venture. Complainant

de3lined and e1plained to respondent t2at 2e and 2is 4amil needed t2e mone instead to 3over t2eir dail e1penses as 2e

as no lon+er emploed. Respondent alle+edl a+reed, 8ut s2e 4ailed to 4ul4ill 2er promise.57

Respondent even pu8li3l announ3ed in t2eir reli+ious or+ani9ation t2at s2e as a8le to 2elp settle t2e ten ;6/usti3e.57 It is 4or t2ese reasons t2at e 2ave des3ri8ed t2e attorne-3lient relations2ip as one o4

trust and 3on4iden3e o4 t2e 2i+2est de+ree.5E7

Respondent must 2ave ?non t2at 2er a3t o4 3onstantl and a3tivel 3ommuni3atin+ it2 3omplainant, 2o, at

t2at time, as 8elea+uered it2 demands 4rom investors o4 Multitel, eventuall led to t2e esta8lis2ment o4 a laer-3lient

relations2ip. Respondent 3annot s2ield 2ersel4 4rom t2e inevita8le 3onseuen3es o4 2er a3tions 8 simpl sain+ t2at t2e

assistan3e s2e rendered to 3omplainant as onl in t2e 4orm o4 4riendl a33ommodations,5F7pre3isel 8e3ause at t2e

time s2e as +ivin+ assistan3e to 3omplainant, s2e as alread priv to t2e 3ause o4 t2e opposin+ parties 2o 2ad 8eenre4erred to 2er 8 t2e S"C.57

Respondent also tries to disprove t2e e1isten3e o4 su32 relations2ip 8 ar+uin+ t2at no ritten 3ontra3t 4or t2e

en+a+ement o4 2er servi3es as ever 4or+ed 8eteen 2er and 3omplainant.507#2is ar+ument all t2e more reveals

respondentAs patent i+noran3e o4 4undamental las on 3ontra3ts and o4 8asi3 et2i3al standards e1pe3ted 4rom an advo3ate

o4 >usti3e. #2e IBP as 3orre3t 2en it said:

#2e a8sen3e o4 a ritten 3ontra3t ill not pre3lude t2e 4indin+ t2at t2ere as a pro4essional

relations2ip 8eteen t2e parties. Do1$%a!y "o!a'#s #s %o a% $ss$%#a' $'$$% #% )$$+'oy$% o" a% ao!%$y5 )$ 1o%!a1 ay $ $+!$ss o! #+'#$&. #o esta8lis2 t2e relation,

it is su44i3ient t2at t2e advi3e and assistan3e o4 an attorne is sou+2t and re3eived in an matter pertinentto 2is pro4ession.5/7;"mp2asis supplied.uriousl a44e3t 2is 4irst 3lient in an matter in 2i322e represents 2im and also 2et2er 2e ill 8e 3alled upon in 2is ne relation to use a+ainst 2is 4irst 3lientan ?noled+e a3uired t2rou+2 t2eir 3onne3tion. !not2er test o4 t2e in3onsisten3 o4 interests is

2et2er t2e a33eptan3e o4 a ne relation ill prevent an attorne 4rom t2e 4ull dis32ar+e o4 2is dut o4
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/8243.htm#_ftn52


5/6

undivided 4idelit and loalt to 2is 3lient or invite suspi3ion o4 un4ait24ulness or dou8le dealin+ in t2eper4orman3e t2ereo4.57

Indu8ita8l, respondent too? advanta+e o4 3omplainantAs 2apless situation, initiall, 8 +ivin+ 2im le+al advi3e

and, later on, 8 soli3itin+ mone and properties 4rom 2im. #2erea4ter, respondent impressed upon 3omplainant t2at s2e

2ad a3ted it2 utmost sin3erit in 2elpin+ 2im divest all t2e properties entrusted to 2im in order to a8solve 2im 4rom an

lia8ilit. But simultaneousl, s2e as also doin+ t2e same t2in+ to impress upon 2er 3lients, t2e part 3laimants a+ainst

Multitel, t2at s2e as doin+ evert2in+ to re3laim t2e mone t2e invested it2 Multitel. Respondent 2ersel4 admitted to3omplainant t2at it2out t2e latterAs 2elp, s2e ould not 2ave 8een a8le to earn as mu32 and t2at, as a to?en o4 2er

appre3iation, s2e as illin+ to s2are some o4 2er earnin+s it2 3omplainant.5=7Clearl, respondentAs a3t is s2o3?in+, as it

not onl violated Rule 0./, Canon 0 o4 t2e Code o4 Pro4essional Responsi8ilit, 578ut also toed it2 de3en3 and +ood

taste.

Respondent even 2ad t2e temerit to 8oast t2at no Multitel 3lient 2ad ever 3omplained o4 respondentAs unet2i3al

8e2avior.57#2is remar? indu8ita8l displas respondentAs +ross i+noran3e o4 dis3iplinar pro3edure in t2e Bar. !s a

mem8er o4 t2e Bar, s2e is e1pe3ted to ?no t2at pro3eedin+s 4or dis3iplinar a3tions a+ainst an laer ma 8e initiated

and prose3uted 8 t2e IBP Board o4 Governors, motu proprioor upon re4erral 8 t2is Court or 8 t2e Board o4 O44i3ers o4

an IBP C2apter5E7even i4 no private individual 4iles an administrative 3omplaint.

Upon revie, e 4ind no 3o+ent reason to distur8 t2e 4indin+s and re3ommendations o4 t2e IBP Investi+atin+Commissioner, as adopted 8 t2e IBP Board o4 Governors, on t2e admissi8ilit o4 t2e ele3troni3 eviden3e su8mitted 8

3omplainant. He, a33ordin+l, adopt t2e same in toto.

@inall, respondent ar+ues t2at t2e re3ommendation o4 t2e IBP Board o4 Governors to dis8ar 2er on t2e +rounds

o4 de3eit, malpra3ti3e and ot2er +ross mis3ondu3t, aside 4rom violation o4 t2e $aerAs Oat2, 2as 8een rendered moot and

a3ademi3 8 voluntar termination o4 2er IBP mem8ers2ip, alle+edl a4ter s2e 2ad 8een pla3ed under t2e )epartment o4

(usti3eAs Hitness Prote3tion Pro+ram.5F7Convenient as it ma 8e 4or respondent to sever 2er mem8ers2ip in t2e

inte+rated 8ar, t2is Court 3annot allo 2er to do so it2out resolvin+ 4irst t2is administrative 3ase a+ainst 2er.

#2e resolution o4 t2e administrative 3ase 4iled a+ainst respondent is ne3essar in order to determine t2e de+ree o4

2er 3ulpa8ilit and lia8ilit to 3omplainant. #2e 3ase ma not 8e dismissed or rendered moot and a3ademi3 8

respondentAs a3t o4 voluntaril terminatin+ 2er mem8ers2ip in t2e Bar re+ardless o4 t2e reason 4or doin+ so. #2is is

8e3ause mem8ers2ip in t2e Bar is a privile+e 8urdened it2 3onditions.57#2e 3ondu3t o4 a laer ma ma?e 2im or 2er

3ivill, i4 not 3riminall, lia8le to 2is 3lient or to t2ird parties, and su32 lia8ilit ma 8e 3onvenientl avoided i4 t2is Court

ere to allo voluntar termination o4 mem8ers2ip. %en3e, to terminate oneAs mem8ers2ip in t2e Bar voluntaril, it is

imperative t2at t2e laer 4irst prove t2at t2e voluntar it2draal o4 mem8ers2ip is not a plo to 4urt2er pre>udi3e t2e

pu8li3 or to evade lia8ilit. No su32 proo4 e1ists in t2e present 3ase.

67EREORE, respondent !ttorne Mari3el Pas3ual-$ope9 is 2ere8 DISBARRED4or representin+

3on4li3tin+ interests and 4or en+a+in+ in unla4ul, dis2onest and de3eit4ul 3ondu3t in violation o4 2er $aerAs Oat2 and

t2e Code o4 Pro4essional Responsi8ilit.

$et a 3op o4 t2is )e3ision 8e entered in t2e respondentAs re3ord as a mem8er o4 t2e Bar, and noti3e o4 t2e same 8e

served on t2e Inte+rated Bar o4 t2e P2ilippines, and on t2e O44i3e o4 t2e Court !dministrator 4or 3ir3ulation to all 3ourts in

t2e 3ountr.

SO ORDERED.

Rule ./ o4 Canon o4 t2e Code o4 Pro4essional Responsi8ilit reads in 4ull: Rule ./ In su32 3ases, even i4 t2e laer does not a33ept a 3ase, 2e s2all not re4use to render le+al advi3e tot2e person 3on3erned i4 onl to t2e e1tent ne3essar to sa4e+uard t2e latterAs ri+2ts.5=7 Id. at =-=F.

5=07 Id. at 6-=.5/7 Id. at /-EE.567 Id. at EF-FE.57 Id. at E6.5=7 Hilado v. David, P2il. E0, F0 ;600< 3ited in Quiambao v. Bamba, !.C. No. EF/, !u+ust , //, ESCR! 6, 0-6/.57 S v. !aran"a, 6 P2il. // ;606


6/6

5/7 Id. at E0.567 = P2il. 6/ ;//=

Documents

Pacana vs Atty Pascual Lopez