Respondent lawyer failed to file a comment in response to a petition for disbarment against him and also failed to appear before the IBP, which was investigating the case. While the issues raised in the disbarment petition should be addressed in other legal proceedings, the Court reprimanded the respondent for disregarding the lawful orders of the Court and IBP. The respondent was warned that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely. The resolution recommending the respondent's suspension was set aside and the disbarment case was dismissed without prejudice.
Respondent lawyer failed to file a comment in response to a petition for disbarment against him and also failed to appear before the IBP, which was investigating the case. While the issues raised in the disbarment petition should be addressed in other legal proceedings, the Court reprimanded the respondent for disregarding the lawful orders of the Court and IBP. The respondent was warned that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely. The resolution recommending the respondent's suspension was set aside and the disbarment case was dismissed without prejudice.
Respondent lawyer failed to file a comment in response to a petition for disbarment against him and also failed to appear before the IBP, which was investigating the case. While the issues raised in the disbarment petition should be addressed in other legal proceedings, the Court reprimanded the respondent for disregarding the lawful orders of the Court and IBP. The respondent was warned that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely. The resolution recommending the respondent's suspension was set aside and the disbarment case was dismissed without prejudice.
Respondent lawyer failed to file a comment in response to a petition for disbarment against him and also failed to appear before the IBP, which was investigating the case. While the issues raised in the disbarment petition should be addressed in other legal proceedings, the Court reprimanded the respondent for disregarding the lawful orders of the Court and IBP. The respondent was warned that similar infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely. The resolution recommending the respondent's suspension was set aside and the disbarment case was dismissed without prejudice.
1. Summary of Occurrences Complainants were co-plaintiffs in a civil case while respondent Atty. Macapagal is the counsel for the defendants therein. Complainants then charged respondent with dishonesty when he stated in the defendants’ Answer that the parties are strangers to each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants. They also averred that respondent introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence and he knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading.
In the petition for disbarment, the Court required respondent to
comment. However, respondent did not file any comment. Thereafter, when the administrative case was referred to the IBP for investigation, respondent again failed to appear and participate despite receipt of notice. The IBP, in its resolution, recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
C. ISSUE/(S): Whether respondent should be suspended for dishonesty.
D. RULING NO. The resolution of whether the parties are related to each other was put in issue in the civil case. Clearly, the issue of filiation must be settled in those proceedings, and not in this administrative case. The same is true with regard to the issue of authenticity of the Marriage Certificate as well as the relevance of the “baseless” pleading. Besides, the complainants have already filed a criminal case against the defendants for perjury and had already filed an opposition to the “baseless” pleading. In fine, these issues are proper subjects of and must be threshed out in a judicial action.
In Araneta v. Resurreccion, the Court held that if the matter involves violations of the lawyer’s oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Court’s disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action which is outside the purview of the Court’s disciplinary authority. However, the Court noticed that despite receipt of the Court’s directive, respondent did not file his comment. Neither did he file his Position Paper as ordered by the IBP. And for this, he must be sanctioned. Respondent’s unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.
As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of
this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.
E. DISPOSITIVE PORTION ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He is WARNED that a commission of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246 dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
