Cabugao, Kristina DR.

CANON 19

Case: MARIA CRISTINA ZABALJAUREGUI PITCHER, complainant, vs. ATTY.

RUSTICO B. GAGATE, respondent. (A.C. No. 9532. October 8, 2013.)

FACTS:
Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late David B. Pitcher who
owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle the
affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged the services of
respondent.
Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Bantegui, a major
stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss the settlement of Davids interest in
the company. Prior to another scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed
upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the premises. Bantegui
expressed disappointment over these actions then asked them to leave and
refused to give them a duplicate key. Respondent caused the change in the lock
of the office door. This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint for grave coercion.
The Prosecutors Office issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge
complainant and respondent. Respondent advised complainant to go into
hiding until he had filed the motions in court. However, respondent stopped
communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent, complainant
filed this administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to exercise the
required diligence in handling complainants cause since he: first, failed to
represent her competently; and, second, abandoned his clients cause while the
grave coercion case against them was pending.
Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states:
CANON 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law.
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three
years.