FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. NO. 7023 : March 30, 2006]
BUN SIONG YAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO A.
AURELIO, Respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On November 11, 2004, a complaint-affidavit1 was filed against
Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio by Bun Siong Yao before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking for his disbarment for alleged
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complainant alleged that since 1987 he retained the services of
respondent as his personal lawyer; that respondent is a stockholder
and the retained counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation
and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation of which complainant is a
majority stockholder; that complainant purchased several parcels of
land using his personal funds but were registered in the name of the
corporations upon the advice of respondent; that respondent, who
was also the brother in-law of complainant's wife, had in 1999 a
disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent demanded
the return of his investment in the corporations but when
complainant refused to pay, he filed eight charges for estafa and
falsification of commercial documents against the complainant and
his wife and the other officers of the corporation; that respondent
also filed a complaint against complainant for alleged non-
compliance with the reportorial requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) with the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Mandaluyong City and another complaint with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Malabon City for alleged violation of Section 75 of
the Corporation Code; that respondent also filed a similar complaint
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Jose Del Monte,
Bulacan.
Complainant alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his
wife is a form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of the
confidential information which respondent obtained by virtue of his
employment as counsel. Complainant argued that respondent is
guilty of representing conflicting interests when he filed several
suits not only against the complainant and the other officers of the
corporation, but also against the two corporations of which he is
both a stockholder and retained counsel.
Respondent claimed that he handled several labor cases in behalf of
Solar Textile Finishing Corporation; that the funds used to purchase
several parcels of land were not the personal funds of complainant
but pertain to Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation; that since 1999
he was no longer the counsel for complainant or Solar Textile
Finishing Corporation; that he never used any confidential
information in pursuing the criminal cases he filed but only used
those information which he obtained by virtue of his being a
stockholder.
He further alleged that his requests for copies of the financial
statements were ignored by the complainant and his wife hence he
was constrained to file criminal complaints for estafa thru
concealment of documents; that when he was furnished copies of
the financial statements, he discovered that several parcels of land
were not included in the balance sheet of the corporations; that the
financial statements indicated that the corporations suffered losses
when in fact it paid cash dividends to its stockholders, hence, he
filed additional complaints for falsification of commercial documents
and violation of reportorial requirements of the SEC.
On July 19, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner2 submitted a
Report and Recommendation3 finding that from 1987 up to 1999,
respondent had been the personal lawyer of the complainant and
incorporator and counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation.
However, in 1999 complainant discontinued availing of the services
of respondent in view of the admission of his (complainant's) son to
the bar; he also discontinued paying dividends to respondent and
even concealed from him the corporations' financial statements
which compelled the respondent to file the multiple criminal and
civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder.
The investigating commissioner further noted that respondent is
guilty of forum shopping when he filed identical charges against the
complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon City
and in the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan. It was also observed that respondent was remiss in his
duty as counsel and incorporator of both corporations for failing to
advise the officers of the corporation, which he was incidentally a
member of the Board of Directors, to comply with the reportorial
requirements of the SEC and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Instead, he filed cases against his clients, thereby representing
conflicting interests.
The investigating commissioner recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months4 which
was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
We find that the professional relationship between the complainant
and the respondent is more extensive than his protestations that he
only handled isolated labor cases for the complainant's corporations.
Aside from being the brother-in-law of complainant's wife, it
appears that even before the inception of the companies,
respondent was already providing legal services to the complainant,
thus:
COMM. NAVARRO:
Was there a formal designation or you where only called upon to do
so?cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
Well, I understand in order to show to the employees that they have
labor lawyer and at that time I went to the office at least half day
every week but that was cut short. And so when there are cases
that crop-up involving labor then they called me up.
xxx
ATTY. OLEDAN:
Will counsel deny that he was the personal lawyer of the
complainant long before he joined the company? cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
Yes, with respect to the boundary dispute between his land and his
neighbor but the subject matter of all the cases I filed they all
revolved around the Financial Statement of the 2 corporations. I
never devolves any information with respect to labor cases and the
MERALCO case with respect to boundary dispute, nothing I used.
ATTY. OLEDAN:
Was he not also the lawyer at that time of complainant when he
incorporated the second corporation in 1992? cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
Well, I was the one submitted the corporate papers and I think after
that I have nothing to do with the SEC requirements regarding this
corporation. Just to submit the incorporation papers to the SEC and
anyway they have already done that before. They have already
created or established the first corporation way back before the
second corporation started and there was no instance where I dealt
with the Financial Statement of the corporation with respect to its
filing with the SEC.
ATTY. OLEDAN:
My only question is whether he incorporated and therefore was
aware of the corporate matters involving Solar Farms? cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
As a stockholder I m aware.
ATTY. OLEDAN:
As a lawyer? cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
Well, as a stockholder I m aware.
xxx
ATTY. OLEDAN:
You are not the one who filed'.
ATTY. AURELIO:
I was the one who filed the corporate paper but that's all the
participation I had with respect to the requirement of the SEC with
respect to the corporation.
COMM. NAVARRO:
So, you acted as legal counsel of the corporation even before the
initial stage of the incorporation?
cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
There are two (2) corporations involving in this case, Your Honor,
and the first was I think Solar Textile and this was'.
COMM. NAVARRO:
You were already the legal counsel? cralawlibrary
ATTY. AURELIO:
No, this was created before I became a stockholder.
COMM. NAVARRO:
Who was then the legal counsel before of Solar? cralawlibrary
MR. YAO:
Siya pa rin pero hindi pa siya stockholder.
ATTY. OLEDAN:
Because, Your Honor, he happens to be the brother-in-law of the
wife of the complainant and he is the husband of the wife of her
sister so that's why he was' (inaudible)' other legal matters even
before the corporation that was formed and he became also a
stockholder and in fact he charge the corporation certain amounts
for professional service rendered it is part of the Resolution of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon as annex to the complaint
so he cannot say that he only presented, that he only filed the
papers at SEC and aside from that when the corporation, the Solar
Farms was already formed and the property which he is now
questioning was purchased by complainant. He was the one who
negotiated with the buyer, he was always with the complainant and
precisely acted as complainant's personal lawyer. The truth of the
matter he is questioning the boundary and in fact complainant had
survey conducted in said parcel of land which he bought with the
assistance and legal advice of respondent and in fact complainant
gave him only a copy of that survey. Him alone. And he used this
particular copy to insists that this property allegedly belong to the
corporation when in truth and in fact he was fully aware that it was
the complainant's personal funds that were used to pay for the
whole area and this was supported by the stockholders who
admitted that they were aware that the parcel of land which he
claims does not appear in the Financial Statement of the corporation
was purchased by the complainant subject to reimbursement by the
Board and should the corporation finally have sufficient fund to
cover the payment advance by complainant then the property will
be transferred to the corporation. All of these facts he was privy to
it, Your Honor, so he cannot say that and he is also a stockholder
but the fact is, prior to the incorporation and during the negotiation
he was the personal counsel of the complainant.5
It appears that the parties' relationship was not just professional,
but they are also related by affinity. The disagreement between
complainant's wife and the respondent affected their professional
relationship. Complainant's refusal to disclose certain financial
records prompted respondent to retaliate by filing several suits.
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and
his client is a fiduciary one.6 Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not
permitted to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises
at the inception of their relationship. The protection given to the
client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client.7
Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations, respondent's act of
filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in different venues
constitutes forum-shopping, as correctly found by the investigating
commissioner. This highlights his motives rather than his cause of
action. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to
get back at the complainant. In doing so, he has inevitably utilized
information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and
complainant's companies for his own end.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with
their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach.8 Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit
their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool
for instigating hostility against any person most especially against a
client or former client. As we stated in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.:9
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by
clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of
his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The
bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor
to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing
should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might
tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.10 (Emphasis
supplied) cralawlibrary
In sum, we find that respondent's actuations amount to a breach of
his duty to uphold good faith and fairness, sufficient to warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio is ordered
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS effective upon receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this
Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court Administrator is
directed to circulate this order of suspension to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1
Rollo, pp. 1-10.
2
Lydia A. Navarro.
3
Rollo, pp. 187-195.
4
Id. at 195.
5
Id. at 159-168.
6
Sumaoang v. Judge, Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueve Ecija, Br. 31, G.R. No. 78173, October 26, 1992, 215 SCRA
136, 143.
7
Genato v. Silapan, 453 Phil. 910, 917 (2003).
8
De Guzman v. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943, January 26, 2001, 350 SCRA 320, 324.
9
A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 1.
10
Id. at 12-13.
