View full case

GEORGE C. SOLATAN v. ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES

FACTS:

Attorneys Jose C. Camano and Oscar A. Inocentes are partners in the law firm Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office. The law office represented spouses Andres and Ludivina Genito, owners of the Genito Apartments, which were sequestered by the PCGG in 1986. Complainant George C. Solatan's sister, Gliceria Solatan, was a tenant in one of the apartments and a judgment of ejectment was rendered against her in March 1988. Complainant approached Attorney Inocentes to arrange a lease contract to continue staying in the apartment and was referred to Attorney Camano, who handled the ejectment cases.

During a meeting with Camano, complainant and his mother agreed to pay the judgment debt and half of the awarded attorney's fees in exchange for continued stay in the apartment. They issued a check for the attorney's fees, but failed to make any other payment. As a result, the sheriff enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties in the apartment. Complainant then attempted to renegotiate with Camano, leading to the release of the levied properties and an agreement for complainant to issue postdated checks for rental payments.

It was established that Attorney Camano accepted attorney's fees and costs from complainant, possessed complainant's levied Northern Hill oven, and gave advice that conflicted with the interest of his own clients, the Genitos. Attorney Inocentes allowed Camano to perform these acts and exercised command responsibility over the case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended the suspension of Attorney Camano for one year and the reprimand of Attorney Inocentes. Attorney Inocentes contested the recommendation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Inocentes should be held liable for the acts committed by his associate, Atty. Camano.

  2. Whether the letter disclaimer executed by Mr. Genito mitigates Inocentes' liability.

  3. Whether or not Atty. Inocentes may be held administratively liable for the unethical acts committed by his associate lawyer.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioners are not entitled to exemption from real property taxes under the Local Government Code.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Inocentes can be held liable for the acts committed by his associate, Atty. Camano. Atty. Inocentes exercised command responsibility over the case and had supervisory control over Atty. Camano. He received periodic reports from Atty. Camano and allowed him to perform the acts that were inimical to the legal profession. Therefore, Atty. Inocentes is reprimanded for his actions.

  2. No, the letter disclaimer executed by Mr. Genito does not mitigate Atty. Inocentes' liability. The wrongful acts done against the legal profession cannot be undone by a mere letter from a third party.

  3. Atty. Inocentes is not held administratively liable for the unethical acts committed by his associate lawyer. However, he is admonished to monitor more closely the activities of his associates to ensure compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the petitioners are not entitled to exemption from real property taxes under the Local Government Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.

  • The relationship between attorney and client begins at the time the attorney is retained and an attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained.

  • Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all dealings and transactions with their clients. Giving legal advice that conflicts with the interest of the client may be considered disloyalty.

  • The essence of double dealing and betrayal of a client's confidence is needed to categorize an act as infidelity or disloyalty to the client's cause.

  • The acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances.

  • The principle of command responsibility applies not only to the military but also to lawyers in a law firm who have supervisory capacity over their associates.

  • Law practitioners, particularly partners and supervisory lawyers, are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the cases handled by their subordinates and in ensuring compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The degree of control and supervision exercised by a supervising lawyer may vary depending on office practice and the competence of the lawyer supervised.

  • The liability of a supervising lawyer for the misconduct of a subordinate is not equivalent to that of the subordinate and should be determined based on the circumstances of each case.

  • Exemptions from taxes must be strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.

  • Local government units have the authority to grant, suspend, or revoke an exemption or tax relief, subject to certain conditions and limitations imposed by law.