Dumlao, Jr. vs. Camacho

A lawyer who engages in influence peddling, attempted bribery of judicial officers, and threats against court personnel commits grave violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting severe disciplinary sanctions, and where the lawyer has already been disbarred for a separate infraction, the additional penalty is imposed solely for recording purposes in the lawyer's personal file to inform any subsequent petition for lifting of disbarment, there being no double disbarment in this jurisdiction.

Atty. Manuel N. Camacho served as counsel for Pathways Trading International, Inc. in Civil Case No. 2004-0181-D pending before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 42, presided by Judge Ariel Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. The case involved a claim for reimbursement of expenses against Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. and its officers. Following the RTC's grant of summary judgment in favor of Pathways, respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct attempting to influence the court's disposition of the defendants' notice of appeal and the execution of the judgment.

• The Underlying Civil Case: Complainant Judge Dumlao presided over CV Case No. 2004-0181-D, entitled "Pathways Trading International, Inc. versus Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., et al." Respondent appeared as counsel for plaintiff Pathways.
• Summary Judgment: On January 30, 2014, the RTC granted Pathways' motion for summary judgment, ordering defendants to pay P16,000,000.00 in reimbursement, 10% attorney's fees, and costs of litigation.
• Attempted Fraternization and Influence Peddling: While the case was pending, respondent attempted to fraternize with complainant by casually mentioning his closeness to Supreme Court Justices Maria Lourdes Sereno and Marvic Leonen, his position as a University of the Philippines College of Law professor, and his supposed impending appointment as Presidential Legal Consultant to then-President Benigno S. Aquino III.
• Attempted Bribery and Threats: After defendants filed a notice of appeal through new counsel Atty. Geraldine U. Baniqued, respondent called complainant offering to share a portion of his attorney's fees in exchange for denying the notice of appeal and issuing a writ of execution. Respondent simultaneously threatened to file a disbarment case against complainant and insinuated that through his connections, complainant would surely be disbarred if the offer was refused.
• The Garnishment Incident: On May 22, 2014, respondent barged into complainant's chambers demanding that he order Court Sheriff Russel Blair Nabua to sign a garnishment order respondent himself had prepared. The order sought the release of a supposed garnished check in the amount of P18,690,000,643.00—far exceeding the P16,000,000.00 judgment award—to be released directly to respondent. When complainant dismissed him, respondent confronted Sheriff Nabua and threatened: "Kapag hindi mo pipirmahan ito, papatanggal kita," "Alam ng nasa itaas ito," "Alam ng dalawang Justices ito," and "Kung hindi niya pipirmahan ito, tutuluyan ko dismissal nito."
• Text Message Threats: Respondent sent complainant text messages accusing him and the sheriff of antigraft violations and threatening that pleadings would be filed with the Supreme Court and antigraft bodies.
• Procedural Abeyance: Sheriff Nabua refused to sign the garnishment order because defendants had offered personal properties (poultry and swine feeds) to satisfy the judgment, triggering the three-tiered execution procedure under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court where garnishment is a last resort.
• Prior Disbarment: Unbeknownst to the initial proceedings, respondent had already been disbarred in Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho (777 Phil. 1 (2016)) for violating Rules 1.01 and 16.01 of the Code regarding compromise agreements without client conformity and failure to account for funds.

• Influence Peddling and Attempted Bribery: Complainant alleged that respondent violated Canons 10 and 13 and Rules 10.01 and 13.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by attempting to influence the court through name-dropping of high-ranking judicial officials and offering monetary consideration (a share of attorney's fees) in exchange for favorable judicial action.
• Threats and Disrespect to Court Officers: Complainant maintained that respondent violated Canons 11 and 19 and Rules 11.03 and 19.01 by threatening to file unfounded disbarment charges against the judge and dismissal charges against the sheriff, and by barging into chambers and creating a scene to force the signing of a defective garnishment order.
• Pattern of Misconduct: Complainant argued that respondent's conduct demonstrated a wanton disregard for ethical standards and integrity of the judicial system, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

• Failure to Participate: Respondent failed to file a comment before the Supreme Court despite due notice and failed to attend the mandatory conference before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, effectively waiving his right to present countervailing evidence or arguments.

• Influence Peddling and Attempted Bribery: Whether respondent violated Canons 10 and 13 and Rules 10.01 and 13.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in influence peddling and attempted bribery of the presiding judge.
• Threats Against Court Officers: Whether respondent violated Canons 11 and 19 and Rules 11.03 and 19.01 by threatening court officers with unfounded administrative and criminal charges and disrespecting court processes.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years is proper considering respondent's prior disbarment in an unrelated case.

• Influence Peddling and Attempted Bribery: Respondent was found guilty of violating Canons 10 and 13 and Rules 10.01 and 13.01. By dropping names of Supreme Court Justices, claiming influence with the highest levels of government, and offering a share of attorney's fees in exchange for favorable rulings, respondent engaged in gross misconduct that eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The offer of monetary consideration constituted attempted bribery or corruption of public officers.
• Threats Against Court Officers: Respondent was found guilty of violating Canons 11 and 19 and Rules 11.03 and 19.01. Threatening the judge with disbarment and the sheriff with dismissal, coupled with the offensive behavior of barging into chambers and creating a scene, constituted disrespect to judicial officers and processes. The threats to file unfounded criminal charges for antigraft violations violated the prohibition against using criminal charges to obtain improper advantage.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty was modified to suspension from the practice of law for two years. However, because respondent had already been disbarred in Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho for a different infraction, and there being no double disbarment in this jurisdiction, the suspension was imposed solely for the purpose of recording it in respondent's personal file at the Office of the Bar Confidant. This record shall inform the Court's resolution should respondent file a petition to lift his disbarment.

• Influence Peddling as Violation of Canon 13: A lawyer who implies ability to influence judicial officers through personal connections or relationships violates the duty to rely upon the merits of the cause and to refrain from improprieties which tend to influence or give the appearance of influencing the court. Such conduct perverts the system, weakens the rule of law, and debases the profession.
• Attempted Bribery Under Canon 10: Attempted bribery of a judge or court personnel constitutes a serious charge of malfeasance violating the lawyer's duty of candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. The transaction, typically done in secret between the parties, violates Rule 10.01 prohibiting falsehoods and artifices to mislead the court.
• Prohibition Against Threats of Unfounded Criminal Charges (Rule 19.01): A lawyer shall not threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. The duty to represent a client with zeal is limited by the bounds of the law, and the client's success is subordinate to the administration of justice.
• Respect for Courts and Officers (Canons 11 and 11.03): Lawyers must observe and maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers, abstaining from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to the judicial branch and the State.
• No Double Disbarment and Recording Purpose: Philippine law does not recognize double or multiple disbarment. Once disbarred, no further penalty affecting the privilege to practice law may be imposed; however, subsequent infractions may be penalized by suspension or other sanctions solely for the purpose of recording in the lawyer's personal file at the Office of the Bar Confidant to inform any future petition for reinstatement.

• "The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge — or a judge evincing a willingness — to discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge's sala cannot be over-emphasized."
• "A lawyer is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted."
• "By implying that he can influence Supreme Court Justices to advocate for his cause, respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence in the judiciary."
• "In our laws, there is no double or multiple disbarment. Neither does our jurisdiction have a law mandating a minimum 5-year requirement for readmission."
• "These factors shall be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer subsequently file a petition to lift his disbarment."

• _Plumptre v. Atty. Rivera, 792 Phil. 626 (2016):_ Cited for the principle that soliciting money to bribe a judge maligns the judiciary; respondent therein was suspended for three years.
• _Rau Sheng Mao v. Atty. Velasco, 459 Phil. 440 (2003):_ Cited for the two-year suspension imposed on a lawyer who bragged about influence over judges.
• _Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, 785 Phil. 303 (2016):_ Cited for the one-year suspension for influence peddling; emphasized that lawyers who offer no skill other than acquaintances with officials pervert the system.
• _Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, 777 Phil. 1 (2016):_ The prior disbarment case against respondent for violating Rules 1.01 and 16.01 regarding client funds and compromise agreements.
• _Yuhico v. Gutierrez, 650 Phil. 225 (2010):_ Cited for the principle that a previously disbarred lawyer may only be ordered to pay monetary obligations or fined, but not disbarred anew.
• _Sanchez v. Atty. Torres, 748 Phil. 18 (2014):_ Cited for the practice of imposing suspension penalties for recording purposes in the personal files of already disbarred lawyers.
• _Paras v. Paras, A.C. No. 5333, March 13, 2017:_ Cited for the same principle regarding recording purposes for penalties against disbarred lawyers.

• Canon 10 and Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility: Duty of candor, fairness, and good faith to the court; prohibition against falsehoods and misleading the court by artifice.
• Canon 11 and Rule 11.03, Code of Professional Responsibility: Duty to observe respect due to courts and judicial officers; abstention from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior.
• Canon 13 and Rule 13.01, Code of Professional Responsibility: Duty to rely on merits of cause and refrain from improprieties tending to influence the court; prohibition against extending extraordinary attention to or cultivating familiarity with judges.
• Canon 19 and Rule 19.01, Code of Professional Responsibility: Duty to represent client with zeal within bounds of law; prohibition against threatening unfounded criminal charges to obtain improper advantage.
• Section 9, Rule 39, Rules of Court: Procedure for execution of judgments, establishing the three-tiered process where garnishment is a last resort after personal property satisfaction is offered.

Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, Reyes, A. Jr., and Reyes, J. Jr., JJ.
(Del Castillo, J., on official leave)