Camacho vs.

Pangulayan

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, CANON 9: A lawyer should not in

any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may
tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not
undertake to advise him as to law.

FACTS:

The complainant Atty. Manuel N. Camacho was the counsel of 9 expelled

students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC). These students were
all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE who apparently had
caused to publish some objectionable features or articles in the paper and
found guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the
student publication funds. While the civil case was still pending, letters of
apology and Re-Admission Agreements were separately executed by
and/or on behalf of some of the expelled students. Atty. Regina Balmores
of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices filed a Manifestation for
AMACC. The Quezon City Regional Trial Court dismissed the civil case.
Atty. Camacho then filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices claiming that the respondents,
who were then counsel for the AMACC, procured and effected on separate
occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements (Re-Admission
Agreements) with 4 of his clients in the civil case which in effect required
them to waive all kinds of claims they might have against AMACC, and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it.
Complainant averred that such act of respondents was unbecoming of any
member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.
Atty. Pangulayan acknowledged that it was only himself who had taken part
in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the Re-
Admission Agreements and claimed that it was only executed for the
purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case involving the
expelled students of AMACC.
ISSUE:
WON Pangulayan is guilty of violating canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Ethics
HELD:
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed a
resolution suspending Atty. Pangulayan from the practice of law for 6
months and dismissal of the case against the other Respondents for taking
no part in the negotiation of the case.
Even though Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of the fact that Atty.
Camacho was already the counsel for the students, he still proceeded to
negotiate with them and their parents without communicating the matter to
their lawyer. Atty. Pangulayan’s act was an inexcusable violation of the
canons of professional ethics.
The Court concurred with the findings of the IBP but the period of Atty.
Pangulayan’s suspension was reduced for a period of 3 months given the
circumstances and the explanation of the latter.