Paul Michael L. Tan vs. Atty. Joselito M.

Dimayacyac

(A.C. A.C. No. 11431. January 25, 2017)

A disciplinary action was filed against Atty. Dimayacyac for

violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty.
Dimayacyac falsely alleged in a Motion to Revive a criminal case for
Estafa that Tan did not comply with the compromise agreement
between Tan and Atty. Dimayacyac’s client. The compromise
agreement between the parties provided that the criminal case
against Tan will be provisionally dismissed for two years, and be
revived by motion every two years until Tan’s full payment of the
amount. Should Atty. Dimayacyac be held administratively liable for
engaging in a dishonest conduct?

No. Respondent filed the Motion to Revive in good faith, in

accordance with the parties' agreement before the court, and in
order to protect the interests of his client. Lawyers are expected to
be candid and fair in the filing of their pleadings. In this case, there
is no showing of any attempt to mislead the court or to malign the
reputation of complainant as there was an understanding that the
Motion to Revive would be filed every two (2) years until full
payment of the obligation. Respondent's statement that complainant
failed to comply with the compromise agreement may have been
inaccurate, but it does not constitute dishonesty or deliberate
falsehood that would warrant the imposition of a penalty by this
Court.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62508?s_params=o2e6H2
1CjXosiwebmPVB