View full case

EUFEMIA A. CAMINO v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI

FACTS:

Complainant Eufemia A. Camino lodged a Disbarment Complaint against respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagui before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline. Camino alleged that Atty. Pasagui, who acted as the lawyer of Congresswoman Mila Tan, handled the monetary transactions related to the sale of a property Camino sold to Tan. Camino declined Atty. Pasagui's offer of a partial payment of Thirty Thousand Pesos. Consequently, Atty. Pasagui advised Camino to search for another buyer and assured her that he would manage everything. He advised Camino to set the property's price at Seven Million Pesos. Subsequently, Camino found a buyer who requested a clean title. Atty. Pasagui requested Camino to provide him the title for the transfer, informing her it would cost Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos. Furthermore, Atty. Pasagui suggested Camino secure a loan from Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. (PHCCI), using her property as collateral. Camino executed a Special Power of Attorney empowering Atty. Pasagui to obtain the loan. However, Camino discovered that Atty. Pasagui had received the loan proceeds without her knowledge. She confronted him about this and demanded an accounting of the money and the return of any entrusted documents. Atty. Pasagui defended himself by asserting that he had applied for a personal loan, which he would personally repay. The IBP-CBD found Atty. Pasagui in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to the IBP-Board of Governors adopting the recommendation to reprimand Atty. Pasagui, cautioning him about the imposition of a more severe penalty for future offenses.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Pasagui violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.

  2. Whether Atty. Pasagui should be reprimanded or suspended from the practice of law.

  3. Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct for converting the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent.

  4. Whether or not the respondent lawyer's act of representing both the buyer and seller with opposing interests is unethical and constitutes double-dealing and conflict of interest.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule on forum shopping.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner's case falls under the exception to the rule on forum shopping.

  7. Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner's case was proper.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Pasagui is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  2. The IBP-CBD recommended a reprimand with a warning, while the IBP-Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court modified the penalty and decided to reprimand Atty. Pasagui, without prejudice to the complainant filing an appropriate action in court.

  3. The respondent lawyer is guilty of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct for converting the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent. The lawyer is required to handle his client's money with utmost care and not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. The lawyer should promptly account to the client how the money was spent and if he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client.

  4. The respondent lawyer's act of representing both the buyer and seller with opposing interests is unethical and constitutes double-dealing and conflict of interest. Attorneys must not only keep inviolate their client's confidence but must also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. The lawyer must avoid any actions that may undermine the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients and the public.

  5. Yes, the petitioner violated the rule on forum shopping.

  6. No, the petitioner's case does not fall under the exception to the rule on forum shopping.

  7. Yes, the dismissal of the petitioner's case was proper.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer has the duty to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with clients. The lawyer must not have personal advantages conflicting with the client's interests.

  • A lawyer's conduct can be assessed in both their professional and private capacities, and whether it shows them as lacking moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor.

  • Unlawful conduct does not necessarily require criminality but includes acts contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by the law.

  • Dishonest conduct involves lying, cheating, deceiving, defrauding, betraying, lacking integrity, and fairness.

  • Deceitful conduct involves fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device used to the prejudice and damage of others.

  • A lawyer must hold in trust all money and properties of clients, keep those funds separate from their own or others, and deliver funds and property when due or upon demand. They are allowed a lien to satisfy lawful fees and disbursements.

  • A lawyer has an obligation to promptly report the money of clients that come into their possession and must not delay any person for money or malice.

  • Lawyers have a duty to handle their client's money with utmost care and not use it for personal purposes without the client's consent.

  • Lawyers must promptly account to their clients how the money was spent and if it is not used for its intended purpose, it must be returned to the client.

  • Lawyers must avoid any actions that may undermine the trust and confidence reposed in them by their clients and the public.

  • Lawyers should not represent conflicting interests and must avoid any appearance of treachery and double-dealing.

  • The rule on forum shopping prohibits a party from filing multiple cases involving the same issues in different courts or agencies. Violation of this rule warrants the dismissal of the duplicate case.

  • The rule on forum shopping aims to prevent the abuse of court processes and the imposition of unnecessary burdens on the courts, as well as to prevent the possibility of conflicting decisions from different courts.

  • The exception to the rule on forum shopping is when the cases involve different causes of action, although they may arise from the same incident or factual circumstances.

  • A dismissal on the ground of forum shopping is with prejudice, which means that it carries an implication of a final adjudication on the merits and bars the refiling of the case.