THIRD DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 12826, February 01, 2021 ]ROMEO ADAN v. ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA +
ROMEO ADAN AND CIRILA ADAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
ROMEO ADAN v. ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA +
ROMEO ADAN AND CIRILA ADAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
The Court resolves this Complaint[1] filed by Romeo Adan and Cirila Adan (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda (respondent) for malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
Factual Antecedent
Respondent, whose law office is located in Intramuros, Manila, served as counsel for complainants in a criminal case for Perjury, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Romeo Adan & Cirila Adan," docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-14719 (perjury case) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Calbayog City, Samar.[2] Complainants, as the accused in the said case, were scheduled to be arraigned on March 6, 2017. On two occasions prior, particularly on January 22, 2017 and March 4, 2017, complainants sent money to respondent in the amounts of P4,290.00 and P3,050.00, respectively, which were intended to pay for respondent's professional fees and transportation expenses from Manila to Calbayog City.[3]
On March 6, 2017, the scheduled arraignment of complainants was held in abeyance due to a Motion to Quash[4] filed earlier by respondent, and a hearing on the motion was set on March 13, 2017.[5] On said date, respondent, along with complainants, attended the hearing on the Motion to Quash, and the same was submitted for resolution.[6]
A few days after the hearing, complainants suddenly received a copy of a motion filed by respondent in the same case entitled "Motion to Issue Show Cause Order to Both of the Accused in Misleading the Court as to their Falsified Address,"[7] (Motion to Issue Show Cause Order) which was dated February 28, 2017. Respondent, through this Motion to Issue Show Cause Order, claimed that the address given by complainants for the purpose of posting bail was "false and misleading," and continued to state that:
In their Complaint dated March 30, 2017, complainants stated that although the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order was already drafted on February 28, 2017, respondent did not inform them of any problem relating to his compensation - even when both parties met during the March 13, 2017 hearing. Instead, respondent proceeded to file the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order, which was contrary to complainants' cause, without their knowledge or consent.[10]
Complainants also claimed that it was respondent who gave them the idea to use the address of Tarcisio Vibar (Vibar), another client of respondent who referred the complainants to him, as respondent knew of Vibar's residence and that they also reside in Catarman, Northern Samar.[11] Furthermore, complainants stated that respondent's allegation that they had been evading the payment of attorney's fees was incorrect, as respondent said, presumably in a text message, that there was "NO COST AND NO MONEY INVOLVED FOR HIS SERVICES AND IT IS ONLY FOR FREE." However, during times when complainants were unable to send money to respondent, the latter would send them insulting, degrading, and offensive text messages, such as "DI AKO PAO NA LIBRE AND SERBISYO KO, MGA ULOL."[12]
In his Verified Answer[13] dated June 13, 2017, respondent claimed that he engages his clients, mostly from Samar (including complainants), on a "modified pro bono basis," where only transportation expenses are charged. While respondent acknowledged having received the money sent by complainants on January 22 and March 4, 2017, he claimed that the same was "not commensurate to the efforts and traveling expenses" he incurred as counsel for complainants, and was actually paid for by Vibar. Moreover, respondent stated that the P3,050.00 he received on March 4, 2017 was insufficient to cover his P8,000.00 plane ticket from Manila to Calbayog City and that he had to shoulder the difference.[14]
Respondent admitted to having filed the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against complainants sometime in February 2017, as he claimed that they provided the court with a false address in the perjury case (for which respondent was their counsel) for the purpose of posting bail.[15] Respondent further admitted to the text messages he sent to complainants and stated that these were "a product of disappointment" as complainants had allegedly made it public that he was the one who facilitated their arrest in the same case.[16]
IBP Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation[17] dated January 11, 2019, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. (Commissioner Din, Jr.) found respondent liable for misconduct and recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months, taking into consideration that this was respondent's "first infraction and no irreparable prejudice resulted to the complainants."[18]
Commissioner Din, Jr. found that the filing of the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order by respondent was unwarranted and in violation of the Lawyer's Oath. The contents of the Motion revealed that the same was filed primarily for the purpose of pressuring complainants to pay and belied his claim that their fee arrangement was on a "modified pro bono basis". He also found that the Motion prejudiced complainants and delayed them for money or malice - in violation of respondent's oath and duty as counsel.[19]
Respondent's conduct was also found to be in violation of Canon 15[20] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for failing to observe his duty of fidelity to his clients, and to conduct himself with integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[21]
The IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution[22] dated May 27, 2019, resolved to adopt the findings of fact of Commissioner Din, Jr., but modified the penalty recommended to three (3) months suspension from the practice of law and a fine of P10,000.00 for respondent's failure to attend the mandatory hearing and file the necessary pleadings before the IBP.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the case, the Court finds that the acts of respondent constitute misconduct, in violation of his oath as a member of the Bar and several provisions of the CPR.
While acting as counsel for complainants in the perjury case, respondent filed the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against his own clients without their knowledge and consent. Whatever justification respondent might have in filing the same, he had incontrovertibly shown his unwillingness to remain faithful to his clients' cause by failing to address or resolve the issue himself and unabashedly seeking to hold them in contempt for something he failed to address as their counsel. By his own admission, respondent knew that the address complainants gave for the purpose of posting bail in the perjury case was incorrect as it was actually the address of Vibar whom respondent was very familiar with. To protect his own interest, however, respondent had more or less acted in a manner that directly conflicted or opposed complainants' cause.
In filing the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against his own clients - which if granted would have been prejudicial to their cause - respondent violated Canons 15 and 17 of the CPR, to wit:
As regards the proper penalty, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension is proper given the circumstances and the number of violations committed by respondent as against the CPR. Normally, reprimand is imposed on an erring lawyer for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature or some minor infraction of his or her duty to the court or the client.[23] However, respondent's act of filing a motion prejudicial to his clients is a patent transgression of the CPR, which respondent committed with full knowledge and skill. Likewise, respondent had shown indifference in justifying his actions by failing to attend the mandatory conference and file his position paper before the IBP. All told, respondent's attitude on his own actions and the resulting disciplinary proceedings is clear.
The foregoing circumstances likewise negate the fact that this is respondent's first offense and that no prejudice ultimately resulted in complainants, which would have normally mitigated or tempered the penalty imposed.[24] These premises considered, the Court resolves to increase the penalty adopted by the IBP Board of Governors to suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda is found liable for violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 14.04 and 20.04, and Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay a FINE of P10,000.00 for his failure to attend the mandatory hearing and file the necessary pleadings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts as herein considered will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the records of respondent, and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation and dissemination to all courts concerned.
Finally, respondent is directed to file a Manifestation before the Court upon serving his suspension and to furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered an appearance a copy of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-5.
[2] Id. at 2.
[3] Id. at 2, 6.
[4] Id. at 42-45.
[5] Id. at 46.
[6] Id. at 47-48.
[7] Id. at 7-10.
[8] Id. at 7-8.
[9] Id. at 3.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 3-4.
[12] Id. at 4.
[13] Id. at 17-26.
[14] Id. at 20-24.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id. at 23.
[17] Id. at 75-83.
[18] Id. at 83.
[19] Id. at 79-81.
[20] CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
[21] Rollo, p. 82.
[22] Id. at 73-74.
[23] See Velasco v. Ansaldo, Jr., A.C. No. 9597, September 11, 2019 (Resolution), citing Advincula v. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431 (2007).
[24] See Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 533 Phil. 303, 311 (2006).
Respondent, whose law office is located in Intramuros, Manila, served as counsel for complainants in a criminal case for Perjury, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Romeo Adan & Cirila Adan," docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-14719 (perjury case) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Calbayog City, Samar.[2] Complainants, as the accused in the said case, were scheduled to be arraigned on March 6, 2017. On two occasions prior, particularly on January 22, 2017 and March 4, 2017, complainants sent money to respondent in the amounts of P4,290.00 and P3,050.00, respectively, which were intended to pay for respondent's professional fees and transportation expenses from Manila to Calbayog City.[3]
On March 6, 2017, the scheduled arraignment of complainants was held in abeyance due to a Motion to Quash[4] filed earlier by respondent, and a hearing on the motion was set on March 13, 2017.[5] On said date, respondent, along with complainants, attended the hearing on the Motion to Quash, and the same was submitted for resolution.[6]
A few days after the hearing, complainants suddenly received a copy of a motion filed by respondent in the same case entitled "Motion to Issue Show Cause Order to Both of the Accused in Misleading the Court as to their Falsified Address,"[7] (Motion to Issue Show Cause Order) which was dated February 28, 2017. Respondent, through this Motion to Issue Show Cause Order, claimed that the address given by complainants for the purpose of posting bail was "false and misleading," and continued to state that:
3) [As] such [both] the accused mislead this Honorable Court by falsifying their given address in order for them to evade the processes and order of this court or perhaps [absconding] from some lawful debt or for whatever reasons;On March 17, 2017, complainants contacted respondent through text message as regards the said Motion, but he merely replied with "MGA ESTAPADOR. MGA ULOL" and "SIRA ULO KAYO SI ROMY AT DIDANG."[9]
4) That even this [representative] has a hard time [locating] and [contacting] their whereabouts, moreover frequently evading the payments of attorney's fees and legal and legitimate expenses in connection [with] their cases[.][8] (Emphasis supplied)
In their Complaint dated March 30, 2017, complainants stated that although the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order was already drafted on February 28, 2017, respondent did not inform them of any problem relating to his compensation - even when both parties met during the March 13, 2017 hearing. Instead, respondent proceeded to file the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order, which was contrary to complainants' cause, without their knowledge or consent.[10]
Complainants also claimed that it was respondent who gave them the idea to use the address of Tarcisio Vibar (Vibar), another client of respondent who referred the complainants to him, as respondent knew of Vibar's residence and that they also reside in Catarman, Northern Samar.[11] Furthermore, complainants stated that respondent's allegation that they had been evading the payment of attorney's fees was incorrect, as respondent said, presumably in a text message, that there was "NO COST AND NO MONEY INVOLVED FOR HIS SERVICES AND IT IS ONLY FOR FREE." However, during times when complainants were unable to send money to respondent, the latter would send them insulting, degrading, and offensive text messages, such as "DI AKO PAO NA LIBRE AND SERBISYO KO, MGA ULOL."[12]
In his Verified Answer[13] dated June 13, 2017, respondent claimed that he engages his clients, mostly from Samar (including complainants), on a "modified pro bono basis," where only transportation expenses are charged. While respondent acknowledged having received the money sent by complainants on January 22 and March 4, 2017, he claimed that the same was "not commensurate to the efforts and traveling expenses" he incurred as counsel for complainants, and was actually paid for by Vibar. Moreover, respondent stated that the P3,050.00 he received on March 4, 2017 was insufficient to cover his P8,000.00 plane ticket from Manila to Calbayog City and that he had to shoulder the difference.[14]
Respondent admitted to having filed the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against complainants sometime in February 2017, as he claimed that they provided the court with a false address in the perjury case (for which respondent was their counsel) for the purpose of posting bail.[15] Respondent further admitted to the text messages he sent to complainants and stated that these were "a product of disappointment" as complainants had allegedly made it public that he was the one who facilitated their arrest in the same case.[16]
In a Report and Recommendation[17] dated January 11, 2019, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. (Commissioner Din, Jr.) found respondent liable for misconduct and recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months, taking into consideration that this was respondent's "first infraction and no irreparable prejudice resulted to the complainants."[18]
Commissioner Din, Jr. found that the filing of the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order by respondent was unwarranted and in violation of the Lawyer's Oath. The contents of the Motion revealed that the same was filed primarily for the purpose of pressuring complainants to pay and belied his claim that their fee arrangement was on a "modified pro bono basis". He also found that the Motion prejudiced complainants and delayed them for money or malice - in violation of respondent's oath and duty as counsel.[19]
Respondent's conduct was also found to be in violation of Canon 15[20] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for failing to observe his duty of fidelity to his clients, and to conduct himself with integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[21]
The IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution[22] dated May 27, 2019, resolved to adopt the findings of fact of Commissioner Din, Jr., but modified the penalty recommended to three (3) months suspension from the practice of law and a fine of P10,000.00 for respondent's failure to attend the mandatory hearing and file the necessary pleadings before the IBP.
After a careful review of the case, the Court finds that the acts of respondent constitute misconduct, in violation of his oath as a member of the Bar and several provisions of the CPR.
While acting as counsel for complainants in the perjury case, respondent filed the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against his own clients without their knowledge and consent. Whatever justification respondent might have in filing the same, he had incontrovertibly shown his unwillingness to remain faithful to his clients' cause by failing to address or resolve the issue himself and unabashedly seeking to hold them in contempt for something he failed to address as their counsel. By his own admission, respondent knew that the address complainants gave for the purpose of posting bail in the perjury case was incorrect as it was actually the address of Vibar whom respondent was very familiar with. To protect his own interest, however, respondent had more or less acted in a manner that directly conflicted or opposed complainants' cause.
In filing the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order against his own clients - which if granted would have been prejudicial to their cause - respondent violated Canons 15 and 17 of the CPR, to wit:
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.Moreover, by alluding in the Motion to Issue Show Cause Order that complainants may be absconding from some debt and that they had been evading payments for attorney's fees and other legitimate expenses, respondent had unwittingly revealed his genuine intent in its filing. While this may fall short of a judicial action against complainants, respondent had nonetheless violated Rule 20.04 of the CPR, as the motion sought the court's intercession to impose the penalty of contempt on his own clients. Rule 20.04 of the CPR provides:
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
RULE 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.In sending complainants text messages filled with accusatory, inflammatory, and obscene language (i.e., "MGA ESTAPADOR. MGA ULOL," "SIRA ULO KAYO SI ROMY AT DIDANG," and "DI AKO PAD NA LIBRE AND SERBISYO KO, MGA ULOL."), respondent had acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court - bereft of any degree of dignity and professionalism expected from him as a lawyer. Such rude and pedestrian language against his own clients tarnishes not only respondent's own integrity but also the noble profession he represents. With this reprehensible behavior, respondent had also violated Rule 14.04 of the CPR, to wit:
RULE 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.Taking the foregoing acts altogether, respondent failed to abide by his oath as a lawyer, particularly the portion which states: "I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients."
As regards the proper penalty, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension is proper given the circumstances and the number of violations committed by respondent as against the CPR. Normally, reprimand is imposed on an erring lawyer for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature or some minor infraction of his or her duty to the court or the client.[23] However, respondent's act of filing a motion prejudicial to his clients is a patent transgression of the CPR, which respondent committed with full knowledge and skill. Likewise, respondent had shown indifference in justifying his actions by failing to attend the mandatory conference and file his position paper before the IBP. All told, respondent's attitude on his own actions and the resulting disciplinary proceedings is clear.
The foregoing circumstances likewise negate the fact that this is respondent's first offense and that no prejudice ultimately resulted in complainants, which would have normally mitigated or tempered the penalty imposed.[24] These premises considered, the Court resolves to increase the penalty adopted by the IBP Board of Governors to suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda is found liable for violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 14.04 and 20.04, and Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay a FINE of P10,000.00 for his failure to attend the mandatory hearing and file the necessary pleadings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts as herein considered will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the records of respondent, and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation and dissemination to all courts concerned.
Finally, respondent is directed to file a Manifestation before the Court upon serving his suspension and to furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered an appearance a copy of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-5.
[2] Id. at 2.
[3] Id. at 2, 6.
[4] Id. at 42-45.
[5] Id. at 46.
[6] Id. at 47-48.
[7] Id. at 7-10.
[8] Id. at 7-8.
[9] Id. at 3.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 3-4.
[12] Id. at 4.
[13] Id. at 17-26.
[14] Id. at 20-24.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id. at 23.
[17] Id. at 75-83.
[18] Id. at 83.
[19] Id. at 79-81.
[20] CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
[21] Rollo, p. 82.
[22] Id. at 73-74.
[23] See Velasco v. Ansaldo, Jr., A.C. No. 9597, September 11, 2019 (Resolution), citing Advincula v. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431 (2007).
[24] See Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 533 Phil. 303, 311 (2006).