DOLORES SILVA Vda. DE FAJARDO, complainant, vs. Atty. REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING, respondent.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Lawyers must be completely truthful, more so when they plead their own causes against former clients. In the present case, the lawyer misrepresented facts in his claim for attorneys fees; hence, he must be sanctioned. The Case The administrative case before the Court stems from a Complaint filed by "olores #ilva vda. de $a%ardo, see&ing the disbarment of 'tty. (e)ie *fren '. +ugaring for untruthful statements in allegedly trying to fleece her of ,-,.-/, 01 in attorneys fees. The Complaint and respondents Comment thereon were referred by the Court to the Integrated +ar of the ,hilippines 2I+,3 for investigation, report and recommendation.
[ ! [/! [-!

I+, Commissioner (ebecca 4illanueva56aalas (eport recommending the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for one year was adopted and approved by the I+, +oard of 8overnors in its 9une / , /11(esolution :o. ;45/11-5-7<. =n 9une -1, /11-, the :otice of the I+, (esolution and the records of the case 55 including the Commissioners (eport 55 were forwarded to this Court by 'tty. 9ulio C. *lamparo, director for bar discipline of the I+,.
[7! [.! [>!

The Facts The facts are narrated by the investigating commissioner in her (eport as follows? Complainant alleged that she had known respondent since 1989 when she, together with her co-heirs, were trying to sell [the] properties which they inherited from their predecessors, Jose and B ena!ent ra "il!a # # #$ [%hey] were enco ntering disp tes with the heirs of &lfredo "il!a Cr ' ()Cr ' *amily+,, then represented -y one &tty$ .icardo /antes, and with their tenants, o!er # # # 0ots 1232 and 1242 located in "ta$ .osa, 0ag na, [which they were trying to sell] to 5olden Bay .ealty and /e!elopment Corporation$

&tty$ B garing was recommended -y &tty$ /antes to complainant to assist her and her co-heirs with the legal aspects of the disp tes they were enco ntering$ &tty$ B garing and &tty$ /antes were close associates and they hold and -elong to the same law office of B garing, % gonon and &ssociates 0aw 6ffices$ 7hene!er complainant and her companion 8aria 0 isa %amondong wo ld go to the office of &tty$ B garing to see him, they also see &tty$ /antes at the same office$ %hinking that &tty$ B garing was an honest and honora-le man, complainant accepted the recommendation$ &t that time, complainant tho ght that there was nothing wrong or anomalo s in she -eing represented -y &tty$ B garing, who -elong to the same law office as that of &tty$ /antes, co nsel of the Cr ' family with which complainant and her co-heirs were then ha!ing disp tes o!er 0ots 1232 and 1242$ "he did not know that it was improper and nethical for lawyers of the same firm to handle conflicting interests of clients$ 9nitially, &tty$ B garing assisted complainant with their pro-lems with the tenants of 0ots 1232 and 1242$ %he tenants then had the preferential right to p rchase the said properties they were occ pying # # #$ [%]hey [had] !er-ally e#pressed their noninterest in p rchasing the same - t ref sed to !acate the premises [and] demanded that they -e gi!en 1:3 of the total land area of the two lots -efore they agree to !acate$ &tty$ B garing wrote, on -ehalf of the complainant and her co-heirs, the said tenants and the &grarian .eform 6ffice$ 8eanwhile, the disp te of complainant and her coheirs with the Cr ' family later led to the filing of the case entitled )&licia Cr ', et al$, !s$ /olores *a;ardo, et al$+ with the .egional %rial Co rt of Bi<an, 0ag na, docketed as Ci!il Case =o$ B-32>1 (hereinafter the )8other Case+,$ %he Cr ' family was asserting an alleged right o!er 0ots 1232 and 1242$ &tty$ B garing represented the complainant and her co-heirs for p rposes of this case$ ?!ery time there was a hearing in the )8other Case+ in 0ag na, the dri!er of complainant wo ld fetch &tty$ B garing at 4@AA o+clock in the morning from his residence:office in B e'on City, and wo ld likewise dri!e him -ack after the hearing$ Complainant paid &tty$ B garing e!ery hearing an appearance fee of C1,AAA$AA, whether hearings were postponed or not, treated him to l nch and sed to send him off with !egeta-les, candies and other goodies$ Complainant had always asked &tty$ B garing how m ch [he wo ld] charge for his professional fees, - t &tty$ B garing wo ld ; st answer@ )D wag na ninyo alalahanin iyon$ Cara ko na kayong nanay o lola$+ &ll along, complainant was swayed to -elie!e that &tty$ B garing was nice and co rteo s$ 0ater, the disp te of complainant and her co-heirs with the Cr ' family got worse$ %he )8other Case+ soon -ranched o t to more and more cases, a-o t ele!en (11, cases in all, which were - t the offshoots of the )8other Case,+ (Ci!il Case =o$

32>1,$ &tty$ B garing contin ed to represent the complaint and her co-heirs in the foregoing cases and as in the )8other Case,+ whene!er there were hearings, &tty$ B garing was fetched -ack and forth -y complainant+s dri!er # # #, [was paid] an appearance fee of C1,AAA$AA per hearing, [was] treated to l nch and sent # # # off [with] some goodies$ 9n all these cases, complainant had asked &tty$ B garing of his professional fees, - t the complainant wo ld get the s al reply of@ )D wag na ninyo alalahanin iyon$ Cara ko na kayong nanay o lola$+ 7ith the rate things were going on then, &tty$ B garing all the more earned the tr st and respect of the complainant more than any-ody else$ 9n =o!em-er 1991, complainant had a meeting with her co-heirs and the latter e#pressed their discontent with the way &tty$ B garing was handling the )8other Case+ and the offshoot cases -eca se the cases were derailing their intended sale of 0ots 1232 and 1242 to 5olden Bay .ealty and /e!elopment Corporation$ Complainant was ho nded -y E estions regarding her arrangement with &tty$ B garing to which complainant co ld not gi!e any answer -eca se there really was no contract or agreement -etween her and &tty$ B garing, who ref sed to disc ss any arrangement with complainant$ &fter their meeting, complainant told &tty$ B garing of the discontent of her co-heirs, and &tty$ B garing told complainant that he can draw a fictitio s )Contract+ for his ser!ices which complainant can show to her coheirs$ 9ndeed, &tty$ B garing drew p two (1, fictitio s )Contract of "er!ices+ -oth dated 11 /ecem-er 1991$ 6ne specifically states that it was for the )8other Case+ and the other was for the case of )Catalina .o-erto, et al$ !$ /olores *a;ardo, et al$+ ?ach of said fictitio s contracts stip late[d] # # # an acceptance fee of C4A,AAA$AA, per appearance fee of C1,AAA$AA and pon the termination of the case, an additional attorney+s fee )eE i!alent to 14F of the !al e of the s -;ect property in litigation$+ 7hen the fictitio s contracts were shown to complainant, she was ass red -y &tty$ B garing that the contracts were not !alid and -inding and told her )9to ho ay para lamang may maipakita kayo sa kanila, pero hindi ito totoo$+ 7ith that ass rance, complainant signed the contract and was gi!en a copy of the same$ &ro nd 1991, complainant and her co-heirs entered into separate compromise agreements with the tenants of 0ots 1232 and 1242 and with the Cr ' family$ %he agreement with the Cr ' family was later p t into writing with the e#ec tion of a Compromise &greement dated > J ne 1991, which was s -mitted to the co rt -efore which the )8other Case+ was pending$ [9]t -ecame the -asis of the J dgment dated 11 =o!em-er 1993 # # # [and the dismissal of] all the offshoot cases # # #$ [6n the other hand,] the Compromise &greement reached with the tenants of 0ots 1232 and [1242] consisted of an agreement totally ceding 0ot 1242 to the tenants as [d]ist r-ance [c]ompensation$ Complainant and her co-heirs decided not to re!eal these agreements

[to &tty$ B garing] ntil they were finali'ed -eca se they knew that [he] did not want s ch settlement for reasons known [only] to him$ 7ith the settlement of the disp tes o!er 0ots 1232 and 1242, the sale of the remaining property (0ot 1232, to 5olden Bay [.]ealty and /e!elopment Corporation materiali'ed on 1 8arch 1992$ Complainant was accompanied -y &tty$ B garing and 8aria 0 isa %am[o]ndong to the office of 5olden Bay .ealty when the sale was finali'ed$ 7hen complainant recei!ed the proceeds of the sale, they went to see &tty$ B garing to settle their acco nt with him$ %hey tendered to &tty$ B garing the amo nt of C1AA,AAA$AA which they -elie!ed was commens rate for his ser!ices considering [that] the cases ended # # # -y compromise agreement$ Dowe!er, &tty$ B garing re;ected the amo nt$ 6n said occasion, &tty$ B garing reE ested the companions of complainant to step o t of the room first and said he wanted to talk to complainant alone$ &tty$ B garing proposed to complainant a deal to the effect that only C84,AAA$AA will -e paid to him -y complainant and he will charge the estate or the complainant+s co-heirs the amo nt of C1,1AA,AAA$AA$ [C]omplainant !ehemently o-;ected to [this] -eca se the estate or her co-heirs did not ha!e that amo nt of money$ %he co-heirs of complainant maintained that they wo ld only pay &tty$ B garing C1AA,AAA$AA, which [amo nt] the latter re;ected$ # # # [C]omplainant did not hear # # # from &tty$ B garing [since &pril 1992]$ [Dowe!er, almost three years later], she learned that her property in %andang "ora was already attached -y &tty$ B garing$ Gnknown to complainant, &tty$ B garing had filed the case entitled ).e#ie ?fren &$ B garing !s$ /olores *a;ardo+ docketed as Ci!il Case =o$ B-9H-19211 in the .egional %rial Co rt of B e'on City, Branch >8, for " m of 8oney and /amages with Crayer for Creliminary &ttachment for # # # collection of his legal # # # fees$ &tty$ B garing specifically prayed for the attachment of complainant+s properties and other assets to answer for his claim ofC3,431,1>A$AA pl s 11F interest per ann m for # # # npaid attorney+s fees, C1,AAA,AAA$AA as moral damages, C4AA,AAA$AA as e#emplary damages and s ch amo nt eE i!alent to 14F from the total claim as attorney+s fees pl s C1,AAA$AA per co rt attendance as appearance fee pl s other pro!en litigation e#penses$ ### ### ###

&tty$ B garing, -y way of comment, a!ers that from 1991 to 8ay 1992, complainant retained his ser!ices as her personal legal cons ltant and # # # lawyer in nineteen (19, co rt cases$ Considering that Ci!il Case =os$ B-32>1 and 3[8]9H -efore the .%C, Bi<an, 0ag na, in!ol!ed !ario s real estate properties, complainant asked &tty$ B garing to prepare a written contract for his attorney+s fees, which was thereafter signed -y the complainant # # #$ [%he] Contract of "er!ices dated 11 /ecem-er 1991 # # # pro!ide[d] that complainant will pay &tty$ B garing an (1, acceptance fee

of C4A,AAA$AAI (1, appearance fee for e!ery co rt appearance ofC1,AAA$AA and (3, attorney+s fee eE i!alent to 14F of the !al e of the properties in litigation$ [&s to] all the other cases [he] handled, [&tty$ B garing charged] a minim m amo nt of C4A,AAA$AA as attorney+s fees andC1,AAA$AA appearance fee [for] e!ery co rt attendance$ Gnder these conditions, considering the comple#ities of the cases, &tty$ B garing la-orio sly and painstakingly represented the rights and interest of the complainant, and there-y s ccessf lly terminated all cases, e#cept Ci!il Cases =os$ B-39>1 and 3[8]9H, which were still nder litigation$ / e to the fail re and adamant ref sal of complainant to settle and pay &tty$ B garing # # # his acc m lated professional fees, he was constrained to make !er-al, and finally, written demands on 3A &pril 1992 and H 8ay 1992$ =otwithstanding the receipts of the demand letters, which e#plicitly indicated to her the comp tation of the amo nt of professional fees demanded, complainant simply remained silent a-o t the matter, there-y signifying her adamant ref sal to settle and pay her legitimately contracted o-ligations to &tty$ B garing$ 7ith no other e#tra-; dicial reco rse, and after &tty$ B garing was a-le to sa!e an amo nt for payment of filing fees, attachment -ond and other initial e#penses (C1AA,AAA$AA more or less, for a collection case on the matter, # # # &tty$ B garing instit ted an action for s m of money with damages against complainant -efore .%C B e'on City, Branch >8, docketed as Ci!il Case =o$ B-9H-19221 [on 11 =o!em-er 199H]$ &fter recei!ing complainant+s &nswer to the Complaint, the trial co rt set the case for [p]re-trial conference on 3 J ne 199>$ Dowe!er, d e to the fail re of complainant and her co nsel to appear, the co rt declared complainant in defa lt and &tty$ B garing was allowed to present e!idence e#-parte # # # on H J ne 199>$ 6n 14 6cto-er 199>, the co rt rendered ; dgment in fa!or of &tty$ B garing$ &s no appeal was ndertaken -y complainant, &tty$ B garing on 12 J ly 1998 filed his 8otion for 9ss ance of 7rit of ?#ec tion thereto which was granted -y the co rt on 18 "eptem-er 1998$ 7hen the 7rit of ?#ec tion was iss ed on 12 /ecem-er 1998, complainant filed [a] Cetition for Certiorari with %emporary .estraining 9n; nction and:or %emporary .estraining 6rder with the Co rt of &ppeals, docketed as C& 5$.$ "C =o$ 298HH, E estioning the trial co rt+s orders dated 3 and 13 *e-r ary 1998, as well as the resol tion dated 18 "eptem-er 1998$ %he Co rt of &ppeals, finding no merit in the petition, dismissed the same and affirmed the trial co rt+s .esol tion on 2 *e-r ary 1999$ Complainant, finding the ad!erse decision of the Co rt of &ppeals, filed a 8otion for .econsideration on 1H &pril 1999$ Complainant also filed a 8otion dated 14 J ly 1999 asking for the iss ance of a Cease, /esist and .efrain 6rder against the [p] -lic [a] ction sale [sched led] on 3A J ly 1999 [-y] the dep ty sheriff of the trial co rt$ &cting on complainant+s motion, the Co rt of &ppeals iss ed a %emporary .estraining 6rder dated 19 J ly 1999$ [D]owe!er, on 3A "eptem-er 1999, the appellate co rt finally iss ed its resol tion denying complainant+s 8otion for .econsideration$J
[0!

Eva !at"#$ a$d Rec#%%e$dat"#$ #& the IBP Commissioner 6aala found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for ma&ing untruthful statements and for misleading the trial courts on several occasions in Civil Case :o. @5A>5/A7// and Civil Case :o. +5-<A>. (espondent allegedly lied to and misled these courts in the following instances?
. Bhen he included in his claim for attorneys fees in Civil Case @5A>5/A7// /. percent of the value of two lots 2at ,-,>01,111 and ,0.1,1113, which were not among the properties in litigation in the C6other CaseD and had already been sold in A<0 and A><, respectively /. Bhen he concealed the fact that Lot /7.7 had been given to complainants tenants as disturbance compensation -. Bhen he failed to disclose that the Contract of #ervice for the C6other CaseD was e)ecuted si) months after it had already been settled by a Compromise 'greement on 9une 0, AA/ 7. Bhen he led the (TC of #an ,edro Laguna 2+ranch A-3, to believe in his ,etition for (ecording and *nforcement of 'ttorneys Lien in Civil Case :o. +5-<A> that no other action or claim was pending e)cept his case for collection .. Bhen he made two inconsistent statements regarding the date when his professional services had actually been engaged by complainant

Commissioner 6aala also found that respondent had not completely been honest with the Commission. 'ccording to his Comment, he decided to forego his professional fees amounting to,/ million in Civil Case :o. +5-<A>; actually, those fees were included in his collection case. It was also in the said case that he filed a ,etition for the (ecording and *nforcement of 'ttorneys Lien.
[<!

Commissioner 6aala held that respondent had violated his sworn duty to tell no falsehood in court. Eence, she recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year. The C#!'t(s R! "$) Be agree with the findings and recommendation of I+,. Res*#$de$t(s Ad%"$"st'at"ve L"a+" "ty

Canon 1 of the Code of ,rofessional (esponsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. 'ccordingly, (ule 1.1 reFuires a member of the bar Cnot [to tell! any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.D 6oreover, #ection /12d3 of (ule -< of the (ules of Court provides that a lawyer must employ Csuch means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never see& to mislead the %udge or any %udicial officer by any artifice or false statement of fact or law.D In his #eptember /<, /11- CommentG=pposition to the I+, Commissioners (eport and (ecommendation, respondent points out alleged distortions in the findings of fact. Hpon a review of the records, however, the Court finds the investigating commissioners conclusions to be in order.
[A!

Falsehood Indeed, respondent has not completely been honest when he claimed that the entire estate of 'dela #ilva was the sub%ect of litigation in the case for partition. First, it is clear that Lots /7-7 and /7.7 were the only properties mentioned in the Complaint for partition, which we Fuote?
[ 1!

# # #$ %he late &dela "il!a died intestate, single and witho t s r!i!ing heirs e#cept the herein plaintiffs and defendants$ "he died # # # lea!ing as her estate the two (1, parcels of land located at Bgy$ Clatero, Bi<an, 0ag na$ %he first known as 0ot 1232 of the Bi<an ?state is co!ered -y %C% =o$ .%-1>A1 (=$&$, while the second known as 0ot 1242 of the same Bi<an ?state is em-raced -y %C% =o$ .t-1>A3 (=$&$, iss ed -y the .egister of /eeds (Calam-a -ranch, of 0ag naIJ
[ !

Second, the Compromise 'greement and the 9udgment in the C6other CaseD for partition did not indicate that the sub%ect of partition was the late 'dela #ilvas estate, but they did refer to the other properties belonging to her, including the 0-,717 sFuare5meter agricultural land in ,uting Iahoy, #ilang, Cavite; and the .1 sFuare5meter residential lot in #ampaloc, 6anila. Bhat appears from the Compromise 'greement and the 9udgment is that these properties were enumerated merely to show that Lots /7-7 and /7.7 were part of the said estate. That only these lots were referred to is plain from the terms and conditions of the 9udgment?

1$ %hat the parties herein here-y agree to refrain from disc ssing whether their claims and co nter claims o!er 0ot 1232 (%C% 11>A1, and 0ot 1242 (%C% 1>A3, are meritorio s or not, and f rther agree to p t an end to all their litigations # # #$ %h s to this effect, all their claims are here-y wai!ed and a-andoned s -;ect to the following terms and conditions@ a$ %hat the defendant /olores "il!a *a;ardo here-y agree[s] to pay the plaintiffs+ representati!e &licia Cr ', the s m of fo r h ndred tho sand (C2AA,AAA$AA, pesos Chilippine c rrency pon signing of this &greement$ %hat the defendant /olores "il!a *a;ardo -e a thori'ed to cons mmate the sale of 0ot =o$ 1232, and 0ot 1242, co!ered -y %C% =o$ 1>A1 and 1>A3, respecti!ely of the .egistry of /eeds of 0ag na, Calam-a -ranch, and to e#ec te all the necessary doc ments in fa!or of the Kendee, 5olden Bay .ealty and /e!elopment Corporation$J
[ /!

-$

Third, it was adeFuately established that the Cavite and the #ampaloc lots mentioned in the Compromise 'greement and the 9udgment had already been sold long before the advent of Civil Case +5-70/. There is no reason to doubt that respondent, as complainants counsel, &new this fact. Lastly, we note that the failure of respondent to include all the properties of the estate in his claim for attorneys fees runs counter to his other claim that complainants entire estate was in litigation. If it were so, should he not then have also as&ed for /. percent of the value of all such properties enumerated in the 9udgmentJ 's regards his professional fees, we stress that the proper time to deal with this delicate issue is upon the commencement of the lawyer5client relationship. In this case, respondent should have determined and entered into an agreement regarding his fees in AA at the latest, when he was first retained by complainant as her counsel in the partition case. #uch prudence would have spared the Court this controversy over a lawyers compensation, a suit that should be avoided e)cept to prevent imposition, in%ustice or fraud.
[ -!

To be sure, a lawyer is entitled to the protection of the courts against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of legitimate attorneys fees. Eowever, such protection must not be sought at the e)pense of truth. Complete candor or honesty is e)pected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes against former clients, as in this case. Bith his armada of legal &nowledge and s&ills, respondent clearly en%oyed the upper hand. 6ore important, he had the sole
[ 7!

opportunity to present evidence in the collection case after complainant was declared in default, and after he was allowed to present his evidence e) parte. (espondent is thus reminded that he is first and foremost an officer of the court. Eis bounden duty is to assist it in rendering %ustice to all. Lest he has forgotten, lawyers must always be disciples of truth. It is highly reprehensible when they themselves ma&e a travesty of the truth and mangle the ends of %ustice. #uch behavior runs counter to the standards of honesty and fair dealing e)pected from court officers.
[ .! [ >!

*Fually without merit are respondents other arguments that the real issue herein is his claim for attorneys fees, whose merit has already been ad%udicated in court, as well as of his allegation that complainant has engaged in forum shopping to delay the e)ecution of the %udgment against her for attorneys fees. To start with, this proceeding is not about the merits of respondents fees, but about his conduct as an officer of the court. It has been emphasiKed in a number of cases that disbarment proceedings belong to a class of their own, distinct from that of a civil or a criminal action. In Re Almacen e)plained this basic principle?
[ 0! [ <!

# # # [/]isciplinary proceedings # # # are s i generis$ =either p rely ci!il nor p rely criminal, this proceeding is not -- and does not in!ol!e -- a trial of an action or a s it, - t is rather an in!estigation -y the Co rt into the cond ct of its officers$ =ot -eing intended to inflict p nishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosec tion$ &ccordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosec tor therein$ 9t may -e initiated -y the Co rt mot proprio$ C -lic interest is its primary o-;ecti!e, and the real E estion for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to -e allowed the pri!ileges as s ch$ Dence, in the e#ercise of its disciplinary powers, the Co rt merely calls pon a mem-er of the Bar to acco nt for his act ations as an officer of the Co rt with the end in !iew of preser!ing the p rity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of ; stice -y p rging the profession of mem-ers who -y their miscond ct ha!e pro!ed themsel!es no longer worthy to -e entr sted with the d ties and responsi-ilities pertaining to the office of an attorney$ # # #$J (9talics s pplied,
[ A!

Clearly then, this disbarment case may proceed independently of the civil action for collection, without running afoul of the prohibition against forum shopping. 6oreover, the elements of forum shopping are conspicuously absent. +etween these two cases, there is no identity of parties, as the complainant is in no sense a party to the administrative proceeding. =bviously, there is neither identity of rights asserted nor reliefs prayed for.
[/1!

Lastly, the %udgment in the disbarment proceeding would not bar the collection case. ,-EREFORE, (espondent (e)ie *fren '. +ugaring is found LIABLE for gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of =:* 2 3 L*'(, effective upon the finality of this "ecision. Ee is WARNED that a repetition of the same or of a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.