Reyes v.

Chiong

Facts: Zonggi Xu and Chia Hsien Pan entered into a business deal and as a result, Xu invested 300k into a
fishball, tempura, and seafood product factory setup by Pan. Eventually, Xu found that a factory was no t
really setup by Pan and when he asked for his money back Pan became hostile, leading to Xu to seek legal
assistance from Atty. Reyes.

A complaint for estafa was filed by Xu thru Atty. Reyes against Pan who was represented by Atty. Chiong.
A subpoena was issued for Pan to appear on Oct 27 and 29, but Pan failed to appear on both dates and
further failed to submit his counter affidavit. Hence, the complaint for estafa was filed and a warrant of
arrest was issued.

Thereafter, an urgent motion to quash the warrant was filed by Atty. Chiong. He also filed a civil complaint
for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as the dissolution of the business venture against
Atty. Reyes, Xu, and the Prosecutor Salanga.

When confronted by Atty. Reyes, Atty. Chiong explained that it was Pan who instituted the action against
him but he would suggest to his client that he should drop the civil case if Atty. Reyes would move for the
dismissal of the estafa case. The two lawyers failed to reach a settlement.

Atty. Chiong contended in his comment that he did not show disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes and
that there was no basis to conclude that the suit he filed was groundless and was, in fact, a means to exact
vengeance. He further argues that Atty. Reyes was impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in
filing the estafa case which he knew was baseless. The matter was referred to the IBP and it was
determined that the damage suit was filed in order to obtain leverage against the estafa case and that
there was no ground to implead the prosecutor and Atty. Reyes.

Allegations against prosecutor Salaga:

Pedro Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused and failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and
the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan due process by violating his rights under the Rules on
preliminary investigations; he also falsely made a Certification under oath that preliminary investigation
was duly conducted and plaintiff (was) duly informed of the charges against him but did not an swer; he
maliciously and . . . partially ruled that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal Information for estafa
against plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null
and void

Issue: WON Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the CPR.

Held: Yes.

Ratio: Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity
of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that" [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel."

The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction subject of the
collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent
took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience
suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit
should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A
great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their
professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with
trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct
and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior
among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly
unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.