Acts of retaliation

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated December 21, 2010 

A lawyer brings honor to his profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.
He should refrain from any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in his fidelity and honesty and in the integrity of the legal profession. This is the norm that Teddy, a lawyer, failed to meet in this case.

Teddy was already sanctioned with a one year suspension from practice of law after being found by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) guilty of infidelity in the handling and custody of his clients’ funds by refusing to turn over the deposits garnished in connection with a case which he won for his client Mercy.

Following the release of said IBP resolution, Teddy filed a series of (12) lawsuits against Mercy and her family members except one of them (Greg) who joined him in filing the cases. Aside from Mercy and her family, Teddy and Greg also filed suits against the family corporation of Mercy, the chairman and members of the Board of Governors of the IBP which suspended him, the Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where Mercy obtained a favorable judgment and even Mercy’s present counsel. Teddy filed those cases in various fora including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Provincial and City Prosecutor’s Office, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

In addition to the 12 cases, Teddy also re-filed five criminal cases against Mercy’s family which had been previously dismissed and one new criminal complaint or a total of six criminal cases.

Thus Mercy’s family and her new lawyer filed another administrative complaint against Teddy praying for his disbarment for professional malpractice and gross misconduct consisting of barratry (fomenting lawsuits), abuse of judicial proceedings and processes, exploiting a family’s personal problem for vengeful and illegal purposes and employing intemperate and abusive language. They maintained that the primary purpose of the cases filed against them by Teddy and Greg was to harass and exact revenge for the one-year suspension meted on him by IBP.

In his defense, Teddy just basically denied the charges against him. He claimed that he filed the cases in good faith and based on facts and not harassment; that they arose from perceptions of unlawful transgression committed by Mercy and other complainants. He also denied using abusive language.

But after investigation the IBP Board found compelling ad convincing evidence showing that Teddy was guilty of the charges and thus disbarred him from the practice of law. Was the IBP correct?

Yes. It is true that there is nothing ethically amiss if a lawyer files numerous cases in different for a as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules and without any ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness. In this case however, the barrage of cases filed by Teddy against Mercy and others close to her was meant to overwhelm and show her that he does not fold easily after he was meted a penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law.

The nature of the cases filed by Teddy, the fact of re-filing them after being dismissed, the timing of the filing of the cases, the fact that Teddy was in conspiracy with Greg a renegade member of Mercy’s family, the defendants named in the cases, and the foul language used in the pleadings and motions, all indicate that Teddy was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His filing of the barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and hatred driven by anger and frustration against his former client who previously filed a disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity in the custody of the client’s fund.

By filing these frivolous and unfounded lawsuits, a lawyer does not assist in the proper administration of justice as officers of the court. He also violates his duties to a former client to whom he owes fidelity and loyalty by using information as to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private documents and other facts and figures in support of the cases he filed, contrary to Canon 21 and Rule 21.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Teddy should thus be disbarred from the practice of law (Alcantara et. al vs. De Vera A.C. 5859, November 23, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net