Philippine British Co., Inc. vs. De Los Angeles

Counsel's duty of candor to the court is not excused by non-receipt of a court decision, and a lawyer who makes representations contrary to information within his knowledge may be admonished even where the Court declines to impose sanctions for a first offense accompanied by an expression of regret.

The petitioners are The Philippine British Co., Inc. and The Cibeles Insurance Corporation, who were represented by Atty. Alfonso Felix, Jr. The respondents include the Presiding Judge of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the same court, and private parties Multifield Enterprises and Moises M. Tapia. The underlying cases had been previously decided by the Court, and the dispositive portion of that decision required Atty. Felix to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for representations he made concerning the merits of his client's cases and the conduct of the trial judge and court personnel.

Atty. Alfonso Felix, Jr. served as counsel for The Philippine British Co., Inc. and The Cibeles Insurance Corporation in cases before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch IV, presided over by Judge Walfrido de los Angeles. In the course of the proceedings, counsel made representations to the Supreme Court concerning the merits of his client's cases and the actuations of the trial judge and court personnel. The Court's prior decision in these cases included a directive requiring Atty. Felix to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for those representations.

Pursuant to that directive, counsel filed a Compliance and Explanation. Upon review, the Court observed that counsel had not been able to explain why there was less than candor in his allegations regarding the merits of his client's cases, given that he appeared to be in possession of adverse information or knowledge about them. Counsel also contended that he had not actually received the decision of the trial court, and on that basis insisted that the decision did not exist when the trial judge ordered its execution. The Court found this contention insufficient, noting that even assuming non-receipt was factually true, it did not warrant his insistence that the decision did not exist at the time execution was ordered.

Counsel expressed his regrets for the lapse. The Court noted that this was the first occasion on which he had allowed his zeal in protecting his client's interests to obscure his duty of candor and good faith toward the courts. Accordingly, rather than imposing administrative sanctions, the Court resolved to simply remind counsel to be more careful in his future dealings with the courts.

• Non-Receipt of Decision: Counsel contended that he had not actually received the decision of the trial court, and on that basis maintained that the decision did not exist when the trial judge ordered execution thereof.
• Explanation of Representations: Counsel filed a Compliance and Explanation attempting to justify the representations he made regarding the merits of his client's cases and the actuations of the trial judge and court personnel.

• Administrative Sanctions: Whether Atty. Alfonso Felix, Jr. should be dealt with administratively for less-than-candid representations made in connection with the merits of his client's cases and the actuations of the trial judge and court personnel.

• Administrative Sanctions: No administrative sanction was imposed. The Court resolved to simply remind counsel to be more careful henceforth, given his expression of regret and the first-time nature of the infraction.

• Administrative Sanctions: The Court found that counsel failed to satisfactorily explain his lack of candor regarding the merits of his client's cases, as he was evidently in possession of adverse information or knowledge about them. His contention that he had not received the trial court's decision, even if factually true, did not warrant his insistence that the decision did not exist when the trial judge ordered execution. Notwithstanding these findings, the Court declined to impose sanctions because counsel expressed his regrets and because this was the first occasion on which his zeal for his client's interests had obscured his duty of candor and good faith toward the courts. The Court accordingly resolved to simply remind him to be more careful in his future dealings with the courts.

• Duty of Candor to the Court — Counsel owes a duty to be strictly candid with the courts and to accord good faith thereto unless there is clearly demonstrable cause to act otherwise. A lawyer's zeal in protecting a client's interests does not excuse less-than-candid representations to the court, particularly where the lawyer possesses adverse information or knowledge regarding the matters about which he makes representations. Non-receipt of a court decision does not justify a lawyer's insistence that the decision did not exist when execution was ordered.

• "the Court notes that counsel has not been able to make it clear why there was less than candor to the court in his allegations regarding the merits of his clients' cases, when it appears rather evident that he was in possession of adverse information or knowledge in regard thereto." — This passage identifies the core finding of the resolution: that counsel's representations lacked candor because he possessed adverse information he did not disclose.

• "the contention of counsel that he has not actually received the decision of the trial court, assuming it is factually true, is no warrant for his insistence that it did not exist when the trial judge ordered execution thereof." — This establishes that non-receipt of a decision does not justify a lawyer's assertion that the decision does not exist, reinforcing the duty of candor.

• "this is the first occasion that he has allowed his noted zeal in the protection of the interests of his clients to obscure his compliance with the duty to be strictly candid with the courts and to accord good faith thereto unless he has clearly demonstrable cause to act otherwise" — This formulation articulates the standard of conduct expected of counsel: strict candor and good faith toward the courts, qualified only by clearly demonstrable cause to act otherwise.

Fernando (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.