Report on Ramos et. al v. Atty.

Pallugna
Khristian Damielle A. Jamer

Parties:
Antonio Ramos & Regina De Dios (Complainants)
Atty. Alejandro Pallugna (Respondent)

Charge: Gross Misconduct and Violation of Lawyer’s Oath (Civil Case No. 2000-264)

Facts:
- Atty. Pallugna is counsel of a certain Gary Pantanosas who has a pending case
with RTC Cagayan de Oro against herein complainants, Ramos & De Dios about
the ownership and control of the Vineyard Piano Bar and Restaurant. RTC CDO
ruled in favor of herein complainants and ordered Pantanosas to cease and desist
acts of management.
- Atty. Pallugna as counsel of the losing party filed for certiorari under Rule 65
before the CA praying that the TRO issued by the RTC be quashed and cancelled.
- CA ordered herein complainants to respond while the client of Atty. Pallugna,
Pantanosas, may reply within 5 days from receipt of said comment. CA also
temporarily ordered herein complainants to resist from implementing the orders
of the RTC.
- Atty. Pallugna then filed a Motion to Restore Possession with motion to appoint a
new sheriff, which in turn resulted to, in compliance to the motion filed, a group
of PNP personnel storming the premises of the subject parties and arrested and
detained the caretakers therein.
- Herein complainants, Ramos & De Dios consider the motion filed as an illegal and
unjust manipulation by Atty. Pallugna, with intent to deceive the court, as to the
correct import and interpretation of the resolution of the CA. Hence, the
complaint against Atty. Pallugna alleging gross misconduct and praying for
disbarment.
- The IBP Commissioner found the acts of Atty. Pallugna violate Canon 10, Rule
10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “a lawyer shall
observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
- As found by the IBP Commissioner, Atty. Pallugna knew that the said order of the
trial court had already been implemented. He should have observed restraint and
should have resorted to appropriate legal remedies instead of acting hastily by
abusing and misusing the rules of procedure and went to exploit the restraining
order issued by CA to his and his client’s unmerited advantage.
- The IBP Commission recommended that Atty. Pallugna be suspended from the
practice of law for law absent the clear showing of gross misconduct.
Issue: W/N the acts of Atty. Pallugna violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling: Yes. The SC ratiocinated that under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice,
and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or
by misusing court processes. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget
that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Their office does not
permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. Candor in all their
dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable membership in the legal
profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness,
fair play and nobility in the conduct of their litigation and their relations with their
clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by
their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of
their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients.

The SC found that Atty. Pallugna’s actuations rendered him administratively liable
for failing to observe the candor, fairness and honesty required of him as a member
of the bar. It was his duty to inform the appellate court, as well as his client, of the
factual developments in the case, and otherwise to bring the case to an end if the
court thereafter determines that the issues had thereby been rendered moot and
academic. The appellate court could then have devoted its efforts to the study and
adjudication of meritorious controversies pending decision. Atty. Pallugna’s bad
faith is evident, as he applied for a restraining order in the Court of Appeals when he
very well knew that the orders of the trial court which were sought be enjoined had
already been implemented. His insistence that he was merely "assisting in the
implementation of the Order of the Higher Court" deserves scant consideration.

The penalty of suspension is imposed to punish the lawyer or to set an example or a

warning for the other members of the bar. In the present case, the SC found that for
Atty. Pallugna’s actuations, he should be suspended for three (3) months from the
practice of law and sternly that future similar transgressions shall be dealt with
more severely.