Reyes v.

Chiong
A.C. No. 5148 – July 1, 2003
EN BANC

SUMMARY
Atty. Ramon Reyes sought the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano Chiong, Jr. for Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's recommendation to
suspend Atty. Chiong, Jr. from the practice of law for two (2) years because he filed a collection suit for damages
against one Pan and Xu, impleading Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The Court held that the inclusion of the
prosecutor and Atty. Reyes in the civil case had no justification since they had never participated in the business
transactions between Pan and Xu. The suit was filed to obtain leverage against an estafa case filed against respondent's
client. The Court held that lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and
civility.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS OF THE CASE
● Xu invested P300k on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura, and seafood products factory being set up by Pan but
later discovered that Pan had not established it.
● When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile.
● Xu engaged the services of Atty. Reyes (Complainant) in Jan 19988 who filed a Complaint for estafa against
Pan, who was represented by Atty. Chiong (Respondent)
● A Criminal Complaint for estafa was filed by Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Salanga and a Warrant of
Arrest was issued by RTC-Manila against Pan.
● Atty. Chiong (respondent) filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant and also filed with RTC-Zamboanga
a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages and the dissolution of a business venture
against complainant, Xu, and Prosecutor Salanga.
● When Atty. Reyes confronted Atty. Chiong, respondent explained that Pan was the one who decided to
institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes and that he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case if
Atty. Reyes would drop the estafa case.
● Atty. Reyes filed a Complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant seeking the disbarment of Atty. Chiong for
violation of his lawyer’s oath and Canon 8 of the CPR.
● Jan 27, In Atty. Xu’s Comment, he argues that there was no basis to conclude the suit was groundless, that
Prosec. Salanga was impleaded because of the irregularities he committed as he resolved to file the estafa case
despite pendency of Pan’s motions to submit counter-affidavits and evidence and to defer/suspend
proceedings, and that Atty. Reyes was impleased because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the estafa
case even if he knew it was baseless.
● IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Reyes and Prosec. Salanga were purposely impleaded in the
civil case to obtain leverage in the estafa case because there was no need to implead them as they never
participated in the business transactions between Pan and Xu.
● IBP adopted the commissioner’s recommendation for suspension from the practice of law for 2 years.
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
(1) W/N Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the CPR? - YES
● Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
○ They are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, must conduct themselves honorably
and fairly.
● Under Canon 8 of the CPR, [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel."
○ Respondent amended the Civil Action to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga as well as his
failure to resort to proper remedies shows that their inclusion to gain leverage against the estafa case.
■ As a lawyer, he should have advised his client of the availability of appropriate remedies.
 ● He should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies such as a
MFR, Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an
information for estafa, Motion to Dismiss, disbarment proceedings against
complainant and Prosecutor Salanga if he believed that the 2 conspired to act
illegally.
■ The civil case was used to return the inconvenience suffered by his client, demonstrate a
misuse of the legal process, and harass the complainant and Prosec Salanga.
○ 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 colleagues.
○ 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.
● The Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.
○ While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit
violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.
■ It is an unacceptable excuse that Respondent pursued such an action because his client
allegedly insisted on including the 2.
■ Lawyers advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they
render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.

RULING

WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice
of law, effectively immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio
Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Austria-Martinez, J., is on leave.