View full case

ATTY. PEDRO B. AGUIRRE v. ATTY. CRISPIN T. REYES

FACTS:

Atty. Pedro B. Aguirre filed a complaint against Atty. Crispin T. Reyes for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Aguirre alleged that Reyes made false claims in his memo to the Board of Directors of Banco Filipino, stating that he was instrumental in winning a Supreme Court case and made special arrangements. Aguirre argued that these statements were false, fraudulent, misleading, and undignified. Reyes also drafted confidential memos and an amended complaint, where he made offensive and improper statements. Atty. Reyes was accused of engaging in forum-shopping by filing unfounded criminal charges for estafa and falsification.

In his comment and counter complaint, Atty. Reyes defended his actions by stating that his legal services were engaged to protect the interests of BF Homes in an SEC case and that he was bringing attention to the alleged plundering of assets.

The complainant, Atty. Pedro B. Aguirre, initiated a complaint against Atty. Crispin T. Reyes before the IBP-CBD. Aguirre claimed that he was subjected to blame, ridicule, and aspersion by the directors and management officers of BF Homes. Aguirre argued that he did not initiate unfounded criminal charges but rather pursued complaints for estafa and falsification on his client's instructions. Aguirre accused Reyes of gross violation of the CPR and claimed that he should be the one disbarred. Aguirre further alleged that Reyes used his position as a major stockholder of Tala Realty Services Corporation to plunder Banco Filipino. Reyes argued that the matter should be resolved in appropriate judicial proceedings and dismissed Aguirre's counter-complaint for disbarment as a harassment suit.

The case was referred to the IBP-CBD for proceedings, and after due process, the IBP-CBD recommended the dismissal of both complaints due to Aguirre's death and Reyes' retirement from the legal profession.

ISSUES:

  1. Should the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Reyes still proceed despite the death of complainant Atty. Aguirre?

  2. Whether the statements made by Atty. Reyes are false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive.

  3. Whether the use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions by Atty. Reyes in his drafted documents violates Rule 8.01.

  4. Whether the appropriate penalty for violating Rule 8.01 is disbarment or a lesser penalty.

  5. Whether Atty. Reyes is guilty of forum-shopping.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Reyes should still proceed despite the death of complainant Atty. Aguirre. A disbarment case is sui generis, and it may continue despite the desistance or failure of the complainant to prosecute. Lawyers are officers of the court with certain obligations and responsibilities, and complaints against lawyers may still proceed even in the event of the complainant's death. Atty. Aguirre's death does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Reyes.

  2. The Court finds no evidence on record indicating that the statements made by Atty. Reyes are false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence and bare allegations are not considered as evidence.

  3. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions by Atty. Reyes violates the requirement for lawyers to use dignified and respectful language. Such language has no place in the dignity of the legal profession.

  4. While Atty. Reyes is guilty of using infelicitous language, the transgression is not of a grievous character to merit disbarment. The appropriate penalty for his misconduct is a fine of P2,000.

  5. Atty. Reyes is not guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping refers to the willful and deliberate act of filing multiple suits to ensure favorable action. The records show no evidence of forum-shopping.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A disbarment case is sui generis, involving an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.

  • Lawyers are officers of the court with peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities.

  • Complaints against lawyers may still proceed despite the complainant's death, as the complainant is treated as a mere witness in administrative proceedings.

  • In administrative proceedings, such as disbarment, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from making false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory, or unfair statements or claims regarding their qualifications or legal services.

  • Allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence, as bare allegations are not considered as evidence.

  • Lawyers are required to use dignified and respectful language, even in their pleadings, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.

  • The appropriate penalty for misconduct by a lawyer should be imposed with great caution, and disbarment or suspension should only be imposed for duly proven serious administrative charges.

  • Forum-shopping is the willful and deliberate act of filing multiple suits to ensure favorable action and may also constitute a violation of legal ethics provisions.

  • The charge of forum-shopping requires the element of identity of right or cause of action in the cases.

  • Convictions for different crimes require the concurrence of different elements for conviction.

  • A conviction in one case does not preclude a finding of guilt in another case, provided that the elements of each crime are met.

  • The absence of identity of right or cause of action in two cases rules out the application of litis pendentia or res judicata.

  • The use of intemperate language by a lawyer is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be considered as simple misconduct.