Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6707
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This treats of a Complaint1 for Disbarment filed by
Gisela Huyssen against respondent Atty. Fred L.
Gutierrez.
Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent
was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation (BID), she and her three sons, who
are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas
under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law.
Respondent told complainant that in order that their
visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the
BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money
for a period of one year which could be withdrawn
after one year. Believing that the deposit was indeed
required by law, complainant deposited with
respondent on six different occasions from April 1995
to April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000.
Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs
that he received the amounts deposited by the
complainant but refused to give her copies of official
receipts despite her demands. After one year,
complainant demanded from respondent the return of
US$20,000 who assured her that said amount would
be returned. When respondent failed to return the
sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which
complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to
respondent for the immediate return of the money. In
a letter dated 1 March 1999, respondent promised to
release the amount not later than 9 March 1999.
Failing to comply with his promise, the World Mission
for Jesus sent another demand letter. In response
thereto, respondent sent complainant a letter dated 19
March 1999 explaining the alleged reasons for the
delay in the release of deposited amount. He
enclosed two blank checks postdated to 6 April and
20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the
amounts. When complainant deposited the postdated
checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored
the issue of whether there exists a 'congruentinterest conflict sufficient to disqualify respondent
Mendoza from representing respondents Tan, et al.
I.B. The 'congruent interest aspect of Rule 6.03
The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending
first, the meaning of 'matter referred to in the rule
and, second, the metes and bounds of the
'intervention made by the former government lawyer
on the 'matter. The American Bar Association in its
Formal Opinion 342, defined 'matter as any discrete,
isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or
conduct involving a particular situation and specific
party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of
law.
Firstly, it is critical that we pinpoint the 'matter which
was the subject of intervention by respondent
Mendoza while he was the Solicitor General. The
PCGG relates the following acts of respondent
Mendoza as constituting the 'matter where he
intervened as a Solicitor General, viz:40 rll
The PCGG's Case for Atty. Mendoza's Disqualification
The PCGG imputes grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) in issuing
the assailed Resolutions dated July 11, 2001 and
December 5, 2001 denying the motion to disqualify
Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al.
The PCGG insists that Atty. Mendoza, as then
Solicitor General, actively intervened in the closure of
GENBANK by advising the Central Bank on how to
proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even
filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of.
As proof thereof, the PCGG cites the Memorandum
dated March 29, 1977 prepared by certain key
officials of the Central Bank, namely, then Senior
Deputy Governor Amado R. Brinas, then Deputy
Governor Jaime C. Laya, then Deputy Governor and
General Counsel Gabriel C. Singson, then Special
Assistant to the Governor Carlota P. Valenzuela, then
Asistant to the Governor Arnulfo B. Aurellano and then
Director of Department of Commercial and Savings
as
10
11
12
13
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B.
Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for defying the
prohibition against private practice of law while
working as government prosecutor.
The Facts
Ruthie Lim-Santiago ("complainant") is the daughter
of Alfonso Lim and Special Administratrix of his estate.
1
Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the former
President of Taggat Industries, Inc. 2
Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio ("respondent") was the former
Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat
Industries, Inc. 3 until his appointment as Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in
1992. 4
Taggat Industries, Inc. ("Taggat") is a domestic
corporation engaged in the operation of timber
concessions from the government. The Presidential
Commission on Good Government sequestered it
sometime in 1986, 5 and its operations ceased in
1997. 6
Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat
("Taggat employees") filed a criminal complaint
entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie LimSantiago," docketed as I.S. No. 97-240 ("criminal
complaint"). 7 Taggat employees alleged that
complainant, who took over the management and
control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld
payment of their salaries and wages without valid
cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. 8
Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was
assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation. 9 He
x x x
Q. (Atty. Dabu). What do you mean you didnt think he
would do it, Madam Witness?
14
15
16
17
REYES, J.:
x x x x
Before us is a verified complaint 1 filed by Martin Lahm
III and James P. Concepcion (complainants) praying
for the disbarment of Labor Arbiter Jovencio Ll. Mayor,
Jr. (respondent) for alleged gross misconduct and
violation of lawyers oath.
On June 27, 2007, the respondent filed his Comment 2
to the complaint.
In a Resolution3 dated July 18, 2007, the Court
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The antecedent facts, as summarized in the Report
and Recommendation4 dated September 19, 2008 of
Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, are as follows:
On September 5, 2006 a certain David Edward Toze
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission against the members of the Board of
Trustees of the International School, Manila. The
same was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 0007381-06 and raffled to the sala of the respondent.
Impleaded as among the party-respondents are the
complainants in the instant case.
On September 7, 2006, David Edward Toze filed a
Verified Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
Against the Respondents. The said Motion was set for
hearing on September 12, 2006 at 10:00 in the
morning. A day after, on September 8, 2006, the
counsel for the complainants herein entered its
appearance and asked for additional time to oppose
and make a comment to the Verified Motion for the
18
19
20
capacity.20
What made matters worse is the unnecessary delay
on the part of the respondent in resolving the motion
for reconsideration of the September 14, 2006 Order.
The unfounded insistence of the respondent on his
supposed authority to issue writs of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order, taken
together with the delay in the resolution of the said
motion for reconsideration, would clearly show that
the respondent deliberately intended to cause
prejudice to the complainants.
On this score, the Investigating Commissioner keenly
observed that:
The Commission is very much disturbed with the
effect of the Order dated September 14, 2006 and the
delay in the resolution of the pending incidents in the
illegal dismissal case before the respondent.
Conspicuously, Section 3 (Term of Contract) of the
Employment Contract between David Edward Toze
and International School Manila provides that David
Edward Toze will render work as a superintendent for
the school years August 2005-July 2006 and August
2006-July 2007.
The Order dated September 14, 2006 in effect
reinstates David Edward Toze as superintendent of
International School of Manila until the resolution of
the formers Verified Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction Against the Respondents.
Since the Employment Contract between David
Edward Toze and International School Manila is about
to expire or end on August 2007, prudence dictates
that the respondent expediently resolved [sic] the
merits of David Edward Tozes Verified Motion for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction Against the Respondents
because any delay in the resolution thereof would
result to undue benefit in favor of David Edward Toze
and unwarranted prejudice to International School
Manila.
x x x x
21
22