View full case

MARCOS V. PRIETO v. ATTY. OSCAR B. CORPUZ

FACTS:

Atty. Marcos V. Prieto filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ferdinand A. Fe and respondent Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz. Complainant alleged that the respondent lawyer had access to the records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG with the help of the respondent judge and was given permission to copy what may help him win the case. Complainant objected to the fact that Civil Case No. 1518-BG was raffled to the respondent judge, who was the former counsel of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1081-BG. Complainant claimed that paragraphs in the complaint in Civil Case No. 1518-BG were allegedly copied from Civil Case No. 1081-BG, which was prepared by the respondent judge as the lawyer of the plaintiff. Complainant argued that these actions constituted misconduct and implied malice or wrongful intent. Complainant further alleged that respondent judge violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing the respondent lawyer to copy the complaint in Civil Case No. 1081-BG and present it as his own work.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation, and a hearing was scheduled. Both the complainant and the respondents submitted their memoranda after the hearing. The report summarized the facts, stating that Salud Andrada Marquez mortgaged several parcels of land in 1992, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the properties were sold to the petitioner. Marquez's daughter, Yolanda Roque, filed a complaint challenging the mortgage and transfer of properties, with the respondent judge as her counsel. The case was dismissed, and the respondent judge was later appointed as the presiding judge of the court where the case was filed. After Marquez's death, Roque engaged the services of respondent lawyer, who filed a new complaint challenging the contracts executed over the property.

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, which was raffled to the respondent judge. Upon discovering that the plaintiff was his former client, the respondent judge immediately issued an order inhibiting himself from the case and ordering the transfer of the record to another RTC branch. The entire record was transmitted to the new branch, and the parties filed their pleadings and briefs.

An administrative case was filed against the respondent judge and respondent lawyer, leading to a hearing. During the hearing, both parties decided not to adduce further evidence and were given time to file their memoranda. The report from Justice Salonga recommended the dismissal of the complaint against the respondents and admonishment for the petitioner for filing a frivolous complaint. It concluded that the administrative case lacked factual and legal basis, and the burden of proof rested on the complainant.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's complaint against the respondents is unfounded and devoid of factual and legal basis.

  2. Whether the petitioner's allegations of illegal or unethical practices by the respondent lawyer hold merit.

  3. Whether the petitioner's accusation against the respondent judge of intending to try Civil Case No. 1518-BG is supported by evidence.

  4. Whether the petitioner should be cited in contempt for filing a petition with unfounded allegations, which aims to mislead the Court and prejudice the respondents.

  5. Whether the petitioner violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a frivolous suit against his opposing counsel.

  6. Whether the lawyer's act of misleading the court and filing a frivolous suit constitutes a transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The present administrative case is unfounded as it lacks factual and legal basis. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and failing to provide sufficient evidence, the complaint must be dismissed.

  2. The petitioner's allegation that the respondent lawyer had free access to the court records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG at the intervention and assistance of the respondent judge is unsupported. Mere adoption of relevant portions of the complaint by the respondent lawyer does not imply any illegal or unethical practice.

  3. There is no evidence to support the petitioner's claim that the respondent judge intended to try Civil Case No. 1518-BG. The petitioner attempted to mislead the court and failed to acknowledge the respondent judge's previous order inhibiting himself from the case.

  4. Yes, the petitioner should be cited in contempt. Filing unfounded allegations intended to mislead the Court and prejudice the respondents constitutes a violation of public accountability and disrupts the orderly administration of justice. The Supreme Court, in the case of Galman Cruz vs. Aliño-Hormachuelos, has emphasized its stance against unfounded suits and its intent to shield those under its employ from such suits.

  5. Yes, the petitioner violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers have a duty to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues. Filing a frivolous suit against opposing counsel and misusing the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice is an unethical practice that should be avoided.

  6. The lawyer's act of misleading the court and filing a frivolous suit constitutes a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyer is fined P5,000.00 for filing a frivolous suit and is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The judge and another lawyer who were respondents in the complaint are exonerated and the administrative complaint against them is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant.

  • Mere allegations without sufficient evidence are not sufficient to support a charge.

  • Accusation is not synonymous with guilt, and there must always be sufficient evidence to support a charge.

  • Lawyers have a duty to observe and maintain respect towards courts of justice and judicial officers (Section 20(b), Rule 138, Rules of Court).

  • Lawyers should support the courts against unjust criticism and clamor.

  • Lawyers have a duty to maintain a respectful attitude towards the court for the maintenance of its supreme importance.

  • Lawyers should not attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right.

  • Lawyers are officers of the courts and should uphold the dignity and authority of the courts.

  • Lawyers should help build and not unnecessarily destroy the high esteem and regard towards the courts.

  • Lawyers should conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues.

  • Lawyers should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

  • Lawyers should observe the rules of procedure and should not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

  • Lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice and avoid unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct, or prevent its realization.

  • Lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

  • The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified.

  • Lawyers should not use their knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes.

  • Filing groundless or frivolous suits is considered a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers may be fined for filing frivolous complaints against others.

  • Lawyers may be exonerated if found not guilty of the accusations against them.