You are on page 1of 2

Loria, Monique Allen V.

CANON 3
Case: JOSE B. GALLANO, ET AL., complainants, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO P.
KITO, respondent. [A.C. No. 10880. January 27, 2016.]
FACTS:
Respondent is the representative and lawyer for DA GAMA MINERALS and
GAMBAN MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. and he is considered a son of
Kibungan. In pursuing the alleged interests of his client, respondent applied
highhanded techniques and applied "divide and conquer" strategies to make
neighbors fight each other.
On April 29, 2010, complainants and the people of Palina were surprised when
Da Gama brought to Palina. The people formed human chains to prevent the
mining company to enter Palina. A complaint was led before the National
Commission on Indigenous People for damages for violation of RA No. 837,
respondent representing the company entered his appearance. Respondent
applied a trick so that complainants' lawyer will withdraw. Complainant then
sought the services of Molintas and Partners Law Office. Respondent then led a
barrage of criminal cases designed to intimidate the people. In one pleading
submitted by respondent, he sought the assistance of police and military
claiming that the place is reportedly known to be a New People's Army infested
area and the presence of leftist organization who are backing the opposition
against the mining company. He also file a case for damage in Makati City.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Kito violated Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of Code of Professional
Responsibility and his lawyers oath.
HELD:
The respondent is the lawyer of the mining company duly licensed and
authorized under the laws of the Philippines to conduct drilling operation in the
area. He prosecuted those charges and counter-charges, when his client entered
the mining area while the people tried to oppose their entry, only upon legal
grounds and in good faith, employing only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client. To show their sincerity to complainants, he has to
withdraw some of the cases Da Gama, client of the respondent, led in Court
hoping that this conciliatory moved may result in the better understanding
between the mining company and the herein complainants and their community.
There is nothing in the actuation of the respondent in the ling of cases against
the complainants and his people that merits disciplinary action because they
were performed in accordance with law and ethics of the law profession. Lawyers
should be given ample leeway in the pursuit of defense of their clients and to put
them in a bad light for such advocacies, pursuits and defenses, bodes ill for legal
practitioners. The case for consideration therefore cannot prosper in view of the
failure of the complainants to substantiate the charges against herein
respondent. For lack of merit, the case against respondent Atty. Rodrigo P. Kito
is hereby recommended to be dismissed.