SECOND DIVISION

[ A.C. No. 10664 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3050], January 27, 2016 ]
ATTY. THELMA A. JADER-MANALO V. ATTY. RICARDO PILARES, JR.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 January 2016 which
reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10664 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3050]: ATTY. THELMA A. JADER-MANALO v. ATTY.
RICARDO PILARES, JR.

On June 2, 2011, Atty, Thelma A. Jader-Manalo (Atty. Jader-Manalo) filed a verified disbarment
Complaint[1] against Atty. Ricardo Pilares, Jr. (Atty. Pilares), in relation to cases involving the Estate of
Rafael Batoon. Atty. Jader-Manalo represented Rafael Batoon's children, Richard and Ginalyn, while
Atty. Pilares represented their mother, Engracia, and her granddaughter, Grace Pearl Batoon-Gutierrez.
[2]

Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that since Richard and Ginalyn could not afford to pay her, they agreed that
she would be paid on a contingency basis, under the following conditions:[3]
For our attorney's fee[s] we will charge you the following:

a)  30%  of your share  in the  amount/property involved, if there is [sic] no court proceedings;

b) 50%  of your  share  in the  amount/property involved, if there is [sic] court proceedings.[4]

Sometime during the litigation of the Estate, Atty. Jader-Manalo was informed by her clients that on
May 18, 2007, they were called to Atty. Pilares' office and asked to sign a document they were not given
an opportunity to read.[5] They later found out that the document they had signed was a Special Power
of Attorney[6] in favor of their mother, Engracia, to dispose of their inherited properties.[7]

Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that her clients also discovered that Engracia was able to dispose of one of
the properties of the Estate by executing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Grace Pearl
Batoon-Gutierrez.[8] Because of this, they were constrained to file a criminal case for falsification of
public documents against Engracia.[9]

In the meantime, a civil case involving one of the properties was ongoing between the parties. During
the pre-conference hearing, Atty. Pilares and his client Engracia proposed to amicably settle with Richard
and Ginalyn, which Atty. Jader-Manalo did not object to. Atty. Pilares allegedly asked for the telephone
numbers of Atty. Manalo and her clients and promised to call her to discuss the settlement.[10]

On August 5, 2010, Atty. Jader-Manalo waited all day for a call from Atty. Pilares, but did not receive
any.[11]

On September 9, 2010, during the hearing of the criminal case against Engracia, Atty. Jader-Manalo
learned from the manifestation of the trial prosecutor, Irene Resurreccion[12] (Prosecutor Resurreccion),
that Atty. Pilares' secretary, Alice Abion, assisted Richard and Ginalyn in going to Prosecutor
Resurreccion's office to request an affidavit of desistance for the dismissal of the criminal case.
[13]
 Prosecutor Resurreccion refused to administer an oath of desistance on the ground that falsification
was a public crime and that she knew that Richard and Ginalyn were represented by Atty. Jader-Manalo.
[14]

Atty. Jader-Manalo also alleged that on October 5, 2010, Atty. Pilares filed a Motion to Fix Attorney's
Fees Based on Quantum Meruit in favor of Richard and Ginalyn so they could avoid paying 50% of the
judgment award as attorney's fees per their agreement with Atty. Jader-Manalo. [15] The trial court
denied this Motion after an opposition filed by Atty. Jader-Manalo. [16]

On April 13, 2011, Atty. Jader-Manalo was surprised when Atty. Pilares manifested in open court that a
compromise agreement was executed by the parties without her knowledge and consent.[17] As a result,
she filed a Motion to Issue Judgment on Compromise Agreement and Include Payment of Attorney's
Fees Equivalent to Fifty (50%) of Plaintiff's Share.[18]

Based on these circumstances, Atty. Jader-Manalo alleged that Atty. Pilares "maliciously violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility."[19]

In his Answer[20] dated July 15, 2011, Atty. Pilares alleged that the Special Power of Attorney in favor of
Engracia was voluntarily executed by Richard and Ginalyn.[21] He also claimed that the execution of the
affidavit of desistance was a directive given by his client, Grace Pearl Batoon-Gutierrez, who was able to
talk to Richard and Ginalyn on the phone. He alleged that Richard and Ginalyn told his client that they
did not fully understand the effects of filing the criminal case and had no intention of putting Engracia in
jail, so they agreed to withdraw their complaint.[22]

He alleged that he filed the Motion for fixing attorney's fees since the parties had already come to an
amicable settlement and the only issue left to be resolved was that of attorney's fees. [23] He claimed that
it was Atty. Jader-Manalo who discredited her profession with her selfish motives in claiming her
attorney's fees, which would have allowed her to get half of the value of the properties involved in the
settlement.[24]

After the conduct of mandatory conference[25] and the submission of position papers,[26] Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquera (Commissioner Antiquera) issued his
Report and Recommendation[27] finding Atty. Pilares liable for simple misconduct and recommending a
penalty of reprimand.

Commissioner Antiquera found that Atty. Pilares violated Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility[28] in two (2) instances: first, when he allowed his secretary to assist Atty. Jader-Manalo's
clients in executing the affidavit of desistance; and second, when he filed the Motion to fix Atty. Jader-
Manalo's attorney's fees.[29]

On May 11, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued Notice of
Resolution No. XXj2013-591[30] adopting and approving Commissioner Antiquera's Report and
Recommendation. However, the Board of Governors modified the recommended penalty of reprimand
to include a stern warning "to be more circumspect in his conduct as senior and old-time
practicing lawyer."[31]

Atty. Pilares filed a Motion for Reconsideration[32] assailing Commissioner Antiquera's Report and
Recommendation and the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-591. On May 3, 2014, the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-
256[33] denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

This court adopts the findings of fact of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but modifies the penalty
recommended.

Lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in their professional
dealings. They also have the correlative duty to exhibit courtesy, candor, and fairness to their
colleagues. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 —A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Atty. Pilares does not deny that he assisted Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients in filing an affidavit of desistance
to benefit his own client, without Atty. Jader-Manalo's knowledge. Even in the event that he was merely
following his client's directive or that Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients were amenable to his assistance, he
should have known that assisting them without their counsel's knowledge is unethical.

Atty. Pilares represented conflicting interests in the litigation. All his communications to the opposing
parties should have been coursed through their counsel. When he was informed by his client that the
opposing parties were open to withdrawing the criminal case, he should have contacted their counsel as
a matter of professional courtesy. His act of directly contacting and assisting his opposing counsel's
clients without her knowledge gave him an unethical advantage in the litigation.

Atty. Pilares' acts were in direct violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.02 and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which state:
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Atty. Pilares also directly encroached upon Atty. Jader-Manalo's professional employment when he filed
the Motion to Fix Attorney's Fees Based on Quantum Meruit. As the opposing counsel, he had no right
to interfere with whatever payment agreement Atty. Jader-Manalo might have had with her clients. If
Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients felt that the amount they had to pay was iniquitous or unconscionable, the
proper recourse should have been for them to renegotiate the terms of their original contract; if they
fail to come to an agreement, her clients should seek assistance from the court.

While Atty. Jader-Manalo's primary concern in instituting this Complaint may have been the payment of
her legal fees, she was neither neglectful nor unfaithful to her clients. She fulfilled her duties as counsel
in the various cases her clients were involved in. Whether she was overcharging for her legal fees was
not for Atty. Pilares to decide and act on. This was an issue best left to the sound discretion of the court.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is of the opinion that a reprimand and stern warning would suffice
to penalize Atty. Pilares for his infraction. Commissioner Antiquera characterized this case as "a typical
example of one lawyer outsmarting the other just to achieve one's objective,"[34] and that "there is
nothing wrong if a lawyer outsmarts another in courtroom technique which usually happens if one is
young and inexperienced."[35]   The Board of Governors agreed and added that a stern warning was
necessary for the "senior and old-time practicing lawyer."[36]

Lawyers who have practiced for a long time'must set a better example for the next generation of
lawyers. The use of unethical courtroom techniques, in the guise of "outsmarting" one's opponents, only
erodes the integrity of the profession. Erring lawyers must be sanctioned to prevent the continued use
of these unethical practices.

In Likong v. Lim[37] this court issued a one-year suspension for a lawyer who facilitated a compromise
agreement between the parties without the opposing counsel's knowledge or participation. The
erring lawyer in Likong, Atty. Alexander H. Lim, was able to execute a compromise agreement that was
grossly disadvantageous to the opposing party, who was unassisted by counsel.

Here, there is no allegation that the compromise agreement executed by Atty. Pilares was grossly
disadvantageous to Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients. Atty. Pilares also admits to filing the Motion to Fix
Attorney's Fees Based on Quantum Meruit to assist Atty. Jader-Manalo's clients in paying what he
perceived to be just and equitable attorney's fees. In this instance, a suspension for six (6) months
should suffice for Atty. Pilares' infraction.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ricardo Pilares, Jr. is hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective immediately upon his receipt of this
Resolution.

Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in respondent's personal record as attorney and member of the
bar, and furnished to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court
                                                                                                      By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

[1]
 Rollo, pp. 2-10.

[2]
 Id. at 2.

[3]
 Id.

[4]
 Id. at 2 and 12.

[5]
 Id. at 3.
[6]
 Id. at 15.

[7]
 Id. at 3.

[8]
 Id. at 4.

[9]
 Id. at 5.

[10]
 Id.              !

[11]
 Id.

[12]
 The Complaint spells Prosecutor Resurreccion's surname as Resurrecion {rollo, p. 5), while the
Transcript of Stenographic Notes  before the Metropolitan  Trial  Court  spells  her surname  as
Resurreccion (Id. at 92-94).

[13]
 Rollo, p. 5.

[14]
 Id.

[15]
 Id. at 6.

[16]
 Id. at 128.

[17]
 Id. at 8.

[18]
 Id. at 9.

[19]
  id.

[20]
 Id. at 498-528.

[21]
 Id. at 505.

[22]
 Id. at 515.

[23]
 Id. at 516.

[24]
 Id. at 524,

[25]
 Id. at 667.

[26]
 Id. at 336-412.

[27]
 Id. at 666-668.

[28]
 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 8, rule 8.02 provides:
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

[29]
 Rollo, pp. 667-668.

[30]
 Id. at 665. The Resolution was penned by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.

[31]
 Id.

[32]
 Id. at 669-685.

[33]
 Id. at 704. The Resolution was penned by National Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.

[34]
 Id. at 667.

[35]
 Id.

[36] 
Id. at 665.

[37]
 A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA414 [Per J. Padilla, Second Division]

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 08, 2016

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library