Reyes vs. Chiong

A lawyer who files a groundless civil suit impleading opposing counsel and a prosecutor solely to gain leverage in a pending criminal case and to harass them violates the lawyer's oath and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

The case arose from a business dispute between Zonggi Xu and Chia Hsien Pan involving a failed fishball factory investment. When Xu filed estafa charges against Pan through his lawyer, Pan's counsel retaliated by filing a civil suit for damages against Xu, his lawyer, and the prosecutor who handled the estafa case, despite the latter two having no involvement in the business transaction.

• Zonggi Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese businessman, engaged the services of complainant Atty. Ramon P. Reyes regarding a failed business venture with Chia Hsien Pan, who was represented by respondent Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr.
• Xu had invested P300,000 in a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory allegedly being set up by Pan in Zamboanga City, but Pan never established the factory and became hostile when Xu demanded the return of his money.
• Through complainant, Xu filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, which was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga and docketed as IS 98J-51990.
• Prosecutor Salanga issued subpoenas for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998, but Pan neither appeared nor submitted his counter-affidavit.
• Consequently, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint for estafa against Pan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, and on April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest against Pan.
• Respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and simultaneously filed a Civil Complaint for collection of a sum of money, damages, and dissolution of a business venture (Civil Case No. 4884) before the RTC of Zamboanga City against Xu, complainant, and Prosecutor Salanga.
• When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that Pan had decided to institute the civil action and claimed he would suggest dropping it if complainant would move for the dismissal of the estafa case, but no settlement was reached.
• The civil complaint was originally filed against Spouses Xu but was later amended to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, alleging that Salanga committed irregularities in the preliminary investigation and that complainant connived with Xu to harass Pan.
• The IBP investigation revealed that complainant and Prosecutor Salanga had no participation in the business transactions between Xu and Pan, and that the civil suit was filed to harass them and gain leverage against the estafa case.

• Complainant alleged that respondent violated his lawyer's oath and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading him and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884 without legal basis.
• Complainant argued that the civil suit was groundless, false, and instituted solely to exact vengeance and harass the opposing counsel and the prosecutor handling the criminal case against respondent's client.
• Complainant maintained that there was no legal ground to include him and the prosecutor as defendants since they had no involvement in the business transaction between Xu and Pan.

• Respondent claimed he showed no disrespect in impleading complainant and that there was no basis to conclude the suit was groundless or instituted for vengeance.
• Respondent argued that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded because of irregularities committed during the preliminary investigation, specifically alleging that Salanga filed the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan's Motion for Opportunity to Submit Counter-Affidavits, an appeal to the justice secretary, and a Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings.
• Respondent alleged that complainant was impleaded because he connived with his client Xu in filing a baseless estafa case, which he knew fully well was without merit.
• Respondent claimed that these irregularities and connivance were discovered only after the institution of the collection suit, and that it was his client Pan who insisted on impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent violated his lawyer's oath and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a civil complaint impleading the opposing counsel and the prosecutor who handled the criminal case against his client.
  • Whether the civil complaint was groundless and filed for the purpose of harassing opposing counsel and gaining leverage in the pending criminal case.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating his lawyer's oath and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • The Court ruled that Civil Case No. 4884 was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case and to harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, as evidenced by the lack of legal basis for their inclusion and the respondent's offer to drop the civil case if the estafa case was dismissed.
  • The Court held that there was no reason to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the collection suit since they never participated in the business transactions between Pan and Xu, and respondent had available proper procedural and administrative remedies to challenge the estafa proceedings if he believed they were irregular.
  • The Court emphasized that lawyers must not promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, and must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards professional colleagues, avoiding harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
  • The Court rejected respondent's excuse that his client insisted on impleading complainant and the prosecutor, ruling that while lawyers owe devotion to their clients, they cannot violate the law or engage in fraud or chicanery.
  • Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years effective immediately.

• Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel; the Court applied this to condemn the filing of a civil suit solely to harass opposing counsel and a prosecutor.
• Prohibition against Groundless Suits (Lawyer's Oath) — Lawyers are bound by their oath not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; the Court found respondent violated this by filing a civil case without legal basis against parties who had no involvement in the underlying transaction.
• Duty of Courtesy and Civility among Lawyers — Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility, and the bickering of clients should not affect their professional conduct; mutual bickering and unjustified recriminations constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

• "Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals and members of the bar."
• "The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them."
• "While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery."
• "The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their professional brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contests and thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skill in the honorable performance of professional duty."

• Cui v. Cui — Cited for the principle that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence of membership in the bar.
• Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo — Cited for the principle that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.
• Javier v. Cornejo — Cited for the principle that mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers detract from the dignity of the legal profession and constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
• Narido v. Linsangan — Cited alongside Javier v. Cornejo regarding unprofessional conduct among lawyers.

• Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel; central to the finding of violation.
• Lawyer's Oath — Specifically the provision binding lawyers not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same"; basis for finding respondent violated his oath.
• Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics — Cited for the principle that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.
• Canon 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics — Cited for the principle that lawyers advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice meeting the strictest principles of moral law.