View full case

EDGARDO AREOLA v. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Edgardo D. Areola against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). Areola alleged that Atty. Mendoza violated her attorney's oath of office, engaged in deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Areola stated in his complaint that Atty. Mendoza visited the Antipolo City Jail during Prisoners' Week and called all detainees with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73 to attend her speech/lecture. During the speech, Atty. Mendoza allegedly advised detainees with drug cases to give her or their relatives money to ensure favorable treatment from Judge Martin and Fiscal Banqui. Areola also claimed that Atty. Mendoza undermined his capability and scolded him and his co-detainees when he assisted them in filing pleadings and motions before the RTC, Branch 73. In her answer, Atty. Mendoza denied the allegations and claimed that Areola's filing of the complaint was a harassment tactic. The Investigating Commissioner found no convincing evidence to prove that Atty. Mendoza received money from Areola's co-detainees, but admitted that Atty. Mendoza advised her clients and their relatives to beg and cry for favorable treatment, which the Investigating Commissioner deemed unethical. The Investigating Commissioner recommended taking appropriate action against Atty. Mendoza.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Mendoza violated her attorney's oath of office, deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether Atty. Mendoza received money from the detainees as alleged.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Mendoza violated her attorney's oath of office, deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although there was no convincing evidence to prove that Atty. Mendoza received money from the detainees, she admitted in her answer that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and cry" so that their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed. This act is highly unethical and improper, degrading the image of and lessening the confidence of the public in the judiciary.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Attorneys are bound by their oath of office, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules of Court. Any violation of these can be considered as attorney misconduct. (Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court; Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • It is improper and unethical for an attorney to advise clients and their relatives to approach judges and fiscals to beg and cry in order to have their motions granted and their cases dismissed. Such actions degrade the image of and lessen the confidence of the public in the judiciary.