Lawyers’ duty to their clients

Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and devotion to their interest. They should be zealous in the defense of their client’s right. But such devotion and zeal should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. They are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy administration of justice.

To maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly, render service and give advice that meet the strictest principles of moral law. This is the tenet applied in this disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Naty de Leon.

Atty. De Leon is the lawyer of Jimmy who has been separated from his wife Amy. The estranged couple has been living separately in two condominiums in Metro Manila. In fact, Jimmy, through Atty. De Leon, has already filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage.

After about a year of living separately and while Amy was in another city down south, she received a frantic phone call from the building administration of the condominium where she lived, informing her that Jimmy, accompanied by three other persons, were at the lobby and trying to enter her unit.

So Amy called her personal bodyguard Cesar Mendez to stop them from forcibly entering the unit. Jimmy angrily scolded Cesar, who told him that he was merely instructed by Amy. About five to seven armed men also arrived and threatened Cesar, but they left when the responding policemen arrived.

Not long after, Atty. De Leon arrived and talked to the policemen. And when the policemen left, Jimmy and Atty. De Leon were able to enter the unit by forcibly opening the door with the assistance of a locksmith whom they called.

Later on, Amy discovered that 12 pieces of her assorted first-class handbags were missing. So on the basis of the police report and the sworn statement of her bodyguard Cesar, she filed, among others, a complaint for disbarment of Atty. De Leon. In support thereof, she executed a sworn statement enumerating what happened based on the report of Cesar and the policemen, narrating the alleged intimidation and grave misconduct of Atty. De Leon, especially in the forcible opening of Amy’s condominium.

After proper investigation, the board of governors (BOG) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the suspension of Atty. Naty de Leon. But on the latter’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that she was merely fulfilling her duty as counsel of Jimmy, the BOG adopted the original recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to merely admonish Atty. De Leon, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or equivalent acts shall be dealt with more severely.

After a judicious review of the report of the Investigating Commissioner, the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed said recommendation. The SC said that the complaint against Atty. De Leon is mainly based on the affidavit of Cesar and the police report. In said documents, however, the name of Atty. De Leon was not categorically mentioned. Cesar made no declaration as to the alleged intimidation and participation of Atty. De Leon. They only said that Jimmy instructed his men to destroy the padlock and enter the house and that Jimmy took pictures then left the unit and padlocked the doors. There is, therefore, an undeniable uncertainty surrounding the issues of whether Atty. De Leon indeed threatened Amy’s bodyguard and participated in the forceful opening of the subject condominium.

What has been established are the facts that Jimmy and Amy have been living separately and Jimmy has in fact filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Amy. Accordingly, while it cannot be ruled with certainty that Atty. de Leon truly engaged in threats, intimidation and forcible entry into the subject condominium, she could have advised her client Jimmy to file and make the proper representation before the court instead of surreptitiously entering the premises.

The lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interest of their client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. They advance the honor of their profession and the best interest of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.

Thus Atty. De Leon should be admonished with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or equivalent acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. (Ortega vs. Tadena, A.C. No. 12018, Jan. 29, 2020).