[A.C. No. 1890. August 7, 2002] FEDERIC FEDERICO O C. SUNTA SUNTAY Y, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAFAEL G. SUNTAY, respondent. DECISION
This Complaint for for disbarment was filed by Federico C. Suntay against his nephew, Atty. Atty. Rafael G. Suntay, alleging that respondent was his legal counsel, adviser and confidant who was privy to all his legal, financial and political affairs from from !"# to !#$. %owever, since they parted ways because of politics politics and respondent&s overweening political ambitions in !#$, respondent had been filing complaints and cases against complainant, ma'ing use of confidential information gained while their attorney(client relationship e)isted, and o therwise harassing him at every turn.
Complainant enumerated the following cases cases filed by respondent to harass harass him* +a Civil Case -o. $/#( 0 for in3unction and damages in !4", 5Carlos 5Carlos Panganiban v. Dr. Federico Suntay,5 Suntay,5 where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff involving fishponds which respondent had previously helped to administer6 +b Civil Case -o. $47#(0,172 5 Narciso Lopez v. Federico Suntay,5 Suntay,5 in !4/ where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff to determine the real contract between the parties li'ewise involving the two +7 fishp fishponds onds which which respond respondent ent had previo previously usly helped helped to admini administe ster6 r6 +c Civil Civil Case Case -o. 74#$ 74#$,,12 5 Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay,5 Suntay,5 for damages where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff6 and, +d 8.S. -o. 44("7, 5 Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay,5 Suntay,5 for false testimony and grave oral defamation before the 9ffice of the :rovincial Fiscal of ;ulacan involving complainant&s same testimony sub3ect of the complaint for damages in Civil Case -o. 74#$. 12
8n addition, complainant alleged that respondent relentlessly pursued a case against him for violation of :< -o. 7!#1$2 for the alleged disappearance of two +7 cree's traversing complainant&s fishpond in ;ulacan covered by TCT -o. T("#4$. T("#4$. Complainant alleged that respondent&s possession and e)amination of the TCT and an d the blueprint plan of the property while he was still counsel for complainant provided him with the information that there used to be two +7 cree's traversing the fishpond, and that since respondent helped in the administration of the fishpond, he also came to 'now that the two +7 cree's had disappeared. Re=uired to answer the charges respondent filed a 5 Motion to Order Complainant to Specify is C!arges5 C!arges5 alleging that complainant failed to specify the alleged 5confidential information or intelligence5 gained by him while while the attorn attorney(c ey(cli lient ent relati relations onship hip e)ist e)isted ed but which which he allege allegedly dly used used agains againstt compla complaina inant nt when when the relationship terminated. Complainant filed filed his Comments thereon Comments thereon as re=uired in our Resolution of 7# >uly !4?. Thereafter this case was referred to the 9ffice of the Solicitor General +9SG for investigation, report, and recommendation in our Resolution dated 7 9ctober !4?. After almost almost four +$ years the 9SG submitted submitted its "eport and "ecommendation dated "ecommendation dated $ 9ctober !?7 enumerating the following findings against respondent, to wit* The evidence presented by complainant which was largely unrebutted by respondent establish two coun ts of malpractice against respondent, one count of violating the confidentiality of client(lawyer relationship and one count of engaging in unethical conduct. . Respondent committed malpractice when he represented 0agno
that case, complainant stated that he once declined the demand of 0agno
uly 7!, !44 with the crime of false testimony and grave oral defamation +B)hibits G and G(. ustice on appeal, respondent continued to be the lawyer of 0agno
between us. %e has complete access in our papers +tsn, 0ay 7, !? Complainant owned several fishponds in ;ulacan, among them, the fishpond covered by Transfer Certificate of Title -o. T("#4$. This fishpond was previously traversed by two cree's, Sapang 0alalim and Sapang Caluang. The e)istence of the cree's is shown by the certificate of title and the blue print plan of the fishpond. 8n the certificate of title, the fishpond is bounded on the north and northeast by Sapang Caluang and on the west by Sapang 0alalim +please see B)hibit #. 8n a letter dated 0arch 4, !4, respondent reported the disappearance of the two cree's to the authorities. The Chief State :rosecutor referred the letter to the 9ffice of the :rovincial Fiscal of ;ulacan. The 9ffice of the :rovincial Fiscal of ;ulacan re=uired the :ublic @or's to conduct a re(survey. +B)hibit #. 8n !4$, the 0inistry of :ublic @or's conducted a relocation survey of the fishpond. The relocation survey disclosed that there were no more cree's traversing the fishpond. Sapang 0alalim and Sapang Caluang had disappeared. Respondent was re=uested to file a formal complaint with supporting affidavits, for violation of :residential
)))) 8- J8B@ 9F T%B F9RBG98-G, undersigned respectfully submit that the evidence establishes commission by respondent of malpractice for violating the confidentiality of client(lawyer relationship and engaging in unethical conduct ) ) ) )1"2 Resolution of this case was delayed despite receipt of the foregoing "eport and "ecommendation in view of the Omnibus Motion to "emand Case to t!e Office of t!e Solicitor #eneral$ Motion to Dis%ualify Solicitor "ogelio Dancel to &ct on t!is Case and Motion to Suspend Period to File &ns'er dated ? >anuary !? filed by respondent principally accusing handling Solicitor anuary 7///, Sec. 7, par. +b, in A.0. -o. !!(7(/?(SC.1#2 After a review of the records of this case, the Court finds the 8;: "ecommendation to be well ta'en. As found by both the 9SG and the 8;: 8nvestigating Commissioner, respondent Atty. Rafael G. Suntay acted as counsel for clients in cases involving sub3ect matters regarding which he had either been previously consulted by complainant or which he had previously helped complainant to administer as the latter&s counsel and confidant from !"# to !#$. Thus in Civil Cases -os. $/#(0 and $47#(0 respondent acted as counsel for estranged business associates of complainant, namely, Carlos :anganiban and -arciso opeI, the sub3ect matter of which were the two +7 fishponds which respondent had previously helped to administer. 9n the other hand, 8.S. -o. 44("7 for false testimony and grave oral defamation before the 9ffice of the :rovincial Fiscal of ;ulacan, and Civil Case -o. 74#$ for damages before the then Court of First 8nstance of 0anila, were filed in behalf of 0agno
a @hen authoriIed by the client after ac=uainting him of the conse=uences of the disclosure6 b @hen re=uired by law6 c @hen necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by 3udicial action. Rule 7./. ( A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information ac=uired in the co urse of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full 'nowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of the attorney( client relation.1?2 As his defense to the charges, respondent averred that complainant failed to specify the alleged confidential information used against him. Such a defense is unavailing to help respondent&s cause for as succinctly e)plained in ilado v. David ( 1!2 Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well 'nown facts. 8n the comple)ity of what is said in the course of the dealings between an attorney and a client, in=uiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further pre3udice the complainants cause. And the theory would be productive of other unsalutary results. To ma'e the passing of confidential communication a condition precedent, i.e.3 to ma'e the employment conditioned on the scope and character of the 'nowledge ac=uired by an attorney in determining his right to change sides, would not enhance the freedom of litigants, which is to be sedulously fostered, to consult with lawyers upon what they believe are their rights in litigation. The condition would of necessity call for an investigation of what information the attorney has received and in what way it is or it is not in conflict with his new position. itigants would in conse=uence be wary in going to an attorney, lest by an unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if an investigation be held, the court should accept the attorneys inaccurate version of the facts that came to him ) ) ) ) %ence, the necessity of setting down the e)istence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstic' for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice ) ) ) ) 8t is founded on principles of public policy, on good taste ) ) ) ) 1T2he =uestion is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. @ith these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, li'e Caesars wife, not only to 'eep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double(dealing. 9nly thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of 3ustice. !EREFORE, in view of the foregoing, 8;: Resolution -o. K8J(7//(#! dated 7! April 7// is adopted and approved. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer(client relationship and for unethical conduct, respondent Atty. Rafael G. Suntay is SS:B-
et copies of this
