View full case

REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN

FACTS:

This administrative complaint stemmed from a criminal case for estafa filed by complainant Reverend Father Jose P. Zafra III against Jojo R. Buniel and Anna Liza M. Guirnalda, which was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur. Attorney Renato B. Pagatpatan was the counsel for Buniel and Guirnalda. During the pendency of the criminal case, Atty. Pagatpatan wrote a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur, requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra's activities and accusing him of concocting stories against his clients. The letter stated that Fr. Zafra's actions were not only a sin but a mortal sin. Fr. Zafra was embarrassed by the letter but was able to clear his name during the investigation conducted by the Board of Consultors with the Bishop. In response, Fr. Zafra filed a complaint against Atty. Pagatpatan with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that Atty. Pagatpatan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Fr. Zafra also claimed that the letter was intended to gratify the personal vendetta and animosity of his clients. He further argued that Atty. Pagatpatan was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, as he continued to practice despite a prior suspension by the Supreme Court. Atty. Pagatpatan justified his actions by stating that he was only aiding his clients in bringing the actions of Fr. Zafra to the attention of the Bishop. He claimed that the letter was not intended to malign Fr. Zafra's reputation. Atty. Pagatpatan admitted to practicing law despite his suspension, citing financial reasons and the needs of his family. The IBP conducted proceedings and, in its Report and Recommendation, found Atty. Pagatpatan not administratively liable for writing the letter-complaint against Fr. Zafra. The IBP held that there was no prohibition for lawyers to write such a letter to the Bishop, and no malice or bad faith could be attributed to Atty. Pagatpatan. However, the IBP found Atty. Pagatpatan liable for the unauthorized practice of law, stating that he cannot escape the consequences of his suspension as ordered by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Pagatpatan violated Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by writing a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra.

  2. Whether Atty. Pagatpatan engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by continuing to practice despite his suspension.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Pagatpatan did not violate Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court ruled that there was no prohibition for lawyers to write a letter to the Bishop concerning priests in its jurisdiction. Lawyers are also not precluded from writing a letter to the bishop on matters pending before the courts. The letter was merely requesting an investigation on the conduct of Fr. Zafra. The Court found no malice or bad faith on the part of Atty. Pagatpatan in writing the letter-complaint.

  2. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Pagatpatan is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Despite his suspension in a previous case, Atty. Pagatpatan continued to practice law by representing party litigants in other cases before different branches of the Regional Trial Court. The Court emphasized that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as an attorney for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Atty. Pagatpatan was ordered to cease and desist from practicing law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • Lawyers are not precluded from writing a letter to the bishop concerning priests within its jurisdiction or on matters pending before the courts. (no specific provision identified)

  • A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)