EN BANC

[A.C. No. 1890. August 7, 2002.]

FEDERICO C. SUNTAY , complainant, vs . ATTY. RAFAEL G. SUNTAY ,

respondent.

Agaton Yaranon for complainant.

SYNOPSIS

A complaint for disbarment was filed by the complainant against his nephew, Atty. Rafael
G. Suntay. Complainant alleged that respondent was his legal counsel, adviser and
confidant who was privy to all his legal, financial, and political affairs from 1956 to 1964.
However, since they parted ways because of politics, respondent had been filing
complaints and cases against complainant, making use of confidential information gained
while their attorney-client relationship existed. Thereafter, this case was referred to the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation. After
almost four years in 1982, the OSG submitted its report and recommendation finding
respondent guilty as charged. Resolution of this case was delayed due to several motions
filed by the respondent. In 1988, the case was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). Finally in 2001 the IBP recommended that respondent Suntay be
suspended from the practice of law for two years for immoral conduct. The investigating
commissioner adopted in toto the report and recommendation of the OSG. In view of the
penalty involved, the case was referred to the Court en banc for final action.
For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship and for unethical conduct,
respondent Suntay was suspended by the Supreme Court from the practice of law for two
years. After review of the records of this case, the Court found the IBP recommendation to
be well taken. As found by both the OSG and the IBP investigating commissioner,
respondent acted as counsel for clients in cases involving subject matter regarding which
he had either been previously consulted by complainant or which he had previously helped
complainant to administer as the latter's counsel and confidant from 1956 to 1964. DScTaC

SYLLABUS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION; CONSTRUED. — A lawyer

shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of the
attorney-client relation. As his defense, respondent averred that complainant failed to
specify the alleged confidential information used against him. Such defense is unavailing.
As succinctly explained in Hilado v. David—Communications between attorney and client
are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant
and irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course
of the dealings between an attorney and a client, inquiry of the nature suggested would
lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant's cause. And the theory would be productive of other unsalutary
results. To make the passing of confidential communication a condition precedent, i.e., to
make the employment conditioned on the scope and character of the knowledge acquired
by an attorney in determining his right to change sides, would not enhance the freedom of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 litigants, which is to be sedulously fostered, to consult with lawyers upon what they believe
are their rights in litigation. The condition would of necessity call for an investigation of
what information the attorney has received and in what way it is or it is not in conflict with
his new position. Litigants would in consequence be wary in going to an attorney, lest by an
unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if an investigation be held, the court should accept the
attorney's inaccurate version of the facts that came to him . . . Hence, the necessity of
setting down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick
for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the
dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer
from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice . . . It is founded on principles of
public policy, on good taste . . . [T]he question is not necessarily one of the rights of the
parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. With
these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate
the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing.
Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice. cDTCIA

DECISION

BELLOSILLO , J : p

This Complaint for disbarment was filed by Federico C. Suntay against his nephew, Atty.
Rafael G. Suntay, alleging that respondent was his legal counsel, adviser and confidant who
was privy to all his legal, financial and political affairs from 1956 to 1964. However, since
they parted ways because of politics and respondent's overweening political ambitions in
1964, respondent had been filing complaints and cases against complainant, making use
of confidential information gained while their attorney-client relationship existed, and
otherwise harassing him at every turn.
Complainant enumerated the following cases filed by respondent to harass him: (a) Civil
Case No. 4306-M 1 for injunction and damages in 1975, "Carlos Panganiban v. Dr. Federico
Suntay," where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff involving fishponds which
respondent had previously helped to administer; (b) Civil Case No. 4726-M, 2 "Narciso
Lopez v. Federico Suntay," in 1970 where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
to determine the real contract between the parties likewise involving the two (2) fishponds
which respondent had previously helped to administer; (c) Civil Case No. 112764, 3 "Magno
Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay," for damages where respondent appeared as counsel for the
plaintiff; and, (d) I.S. No. 77-1523, "Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay," for false
testimony and grave oral defamation before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan
involving complainant's same testimony subject of the complaint for damages in Civil
Case No. 112764.
In addition, complainant alleged that respondent relentlessly pursued a case against him
for violation of PD No. 296 4 for the alleged disappearance of two (2) creeks traversing
complainant's fishpond in Bulacan covered by TCT No. T-15674. Complainant alleged that
respondent's possession and examination of the TCT and the blueprint plan of the
property while he was still counsel for complainant provided him with the information that
there used to be two (2) creeks traversing the fishpond, and that since respondent helped
in the administration of the fishpond, he also came to know that the two (2) creeks had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 disappeared.
Required to answer the charges respondent filed a "Motion to Order Complainant to
Specify His Charges" alleging that complainant failed to specify the alleged "confidential
information or intelligence" gained by him while the attorney-client relationship existed but
which he allegedly used against complainant when the relationship terminated.
Complainant filed his Comments thereon as required in our Resolution of 26 July 1978.
Thereafter this case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for
investigation, report, and recommendation in our Resolution dated 23 October 1978.
After almost four (4) years the OSG submitted its Report and Recommendation dated 14
October 1982 enumerating the following findings against respondent, to wit:
The evidence presented by complainant which was largely unrebutted by
respondent establish two counts of malpractice against respondent, one count of
violating the confidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and one count of
engaging in unethical conduct.
1. Respondent committed malpractice when he represented Magno
Dinglasan in the case for false testimony and grave oral defamation filed by
Magno Dinglasan against complainant before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
of Bulacan (I.S. No. 77-1523).

The case stemmed from the testimony given by complainant on December 21,
1976, before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 3930-M.
When asked why Magno Dinglasan had testified against him in that case,
complainant stated that he once declined the demand of Magno Dinglasan, a
former official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for P150,000.00 as
consideration for the destruction of complainant's record in the Bureau.

On account of that testimony, Magno Dinglasan charged complainant on July 29,

1977 with the crime of false testimony and grave oral defamation (Exhibits G and
G-1). During the preliminary investigation of the case by the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, respondent acted as counsel for Magno Dinglasan.
When the case was dismissed by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan
and it was elevated to the Ministry of Justice on appeal, respondent continued to
be the lawyer of Magno Dinglasan.

Complainant testified in this disbarment proceeding that he consulted

respondent, who was then his counsel, about the demand made in 1957 or 1958
by Magno Dinglasan for P150,000.00 as consideration for the destruction of
complainant's record in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Respondent's advice was
for complainant to disregard the demand as it was improper. Later, when Magno
Dinglasan reduced the amount to P50,000.00, complainant again consulted
respondent. Respondent likewise advised complainant not to heed the demand
(pp. 61-62, tsn, May 21, 1981).
Respondent's representation of Magno Dinglasan in I.S. No. 77-1523 constitutes
malpractice (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court) for respondent was previously
the lawyer of complainant and respondent was consulted by complainant
regarding the very matter which was the subject of the case. By serving as the
lawyer of Magno Dinglasan, in I.S. No. 77-1523, respondent thus represented an
interest which conflicted with the interest of his former client.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 2. Respondent again committed malpractice when he served as lawyer of
Magno Dinglasan in Civil Case No. 112764 before the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
Civil Case No. 112764 was an action for damages filed by Magno Dinglasan
against complainant based, among others, on the same testimony that
complainant gave on December 21, 1976 before the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan in Civil Case No. 3930-M.
For the same reasons set forth above, respondent's representation of Magno
Dinglasan in Civil Case No. 112764 constitutes malpractice as thereby he
represented conflicting interests.
3. In filing a charge against complainant for alleged illegal destruction of
dikes, respondent violated the confidentiality of information obtained out of a
client-lawyer relationship.

In his capacity as lawyer of complainant from 1956 to 1964, respondent had the
following functions:

"Witness
"A: He was my lawyer from 1956 from the time he passed the bar up to
sometime in 1964 and my legal adviser on political matters and legal
matters.
"ATTY. AQUINO:

"Q: As your lawyer from 1956 to 1964, will you kindly inform the Honorable
Hearing Officer what was the nature of the work of Atty. Suntay?

"A: He handled my cases on the titling of our properties. He served as my

legal counsel in the Hagonoy Rural Bank of which my family is the
majority stockholders. He used to help me manage my fishpond. He is our
legal adviser on legal matters. He is our confidant. We have no secrets
between us. He has complete access in our papers (tsn, May 21, 1981)

Complainant owned several fishponds in Bulacan, among them, the fishpond

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15674. This fishpond was previously
traversed by two creeks, Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang. The existence of
the creeks is shown by the certificate of title and the blue print plan of the
fishpond. In the certificate of title, the fishpond is bounded on the north and
northeast by Sapang Caluang and on the west by Sapang Malalim (please see
Exhibit 6).

In a letter dated March 17, 1973, respondent reported the disappearance of the
two creeks to the authorities. The Chief State Prosecutor referred the letter to the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan. The Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Bulacan required the Public Works to conduct a re-survey. (Exhibit 6).

In 1974, the Ministry of Public Works conducted a relocation survey of the

fishpond. The relocation survey disclosed that there were no more creeks
traversing the fishpond. Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang had disappeared.

Respondent was requested to file a formal complaint with supporting affidavits,

for violation of Presidential Decree No. 296. Respondent did so and the complaint
was docketed as I.S. No. 74-193. (Exhibit 6)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 From the foregoing facts, it is clear that respondent made use of the information
he gained while he was the lawyer of complainant as basis for his complaint for
the building of illegal dikes. His possession and examination of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-15674 and the blueprint plan provided him the
information that there used to be two creeks traversing the fishpond covered by
the title. Since he helped in the administration of the fishpond, he also came to
know that the two creeks had disappeared. Thus, he gained the data which
became the basis of his complaint when he was a lawyer and part administrator
of complainant. Under the circumstances, there is a violation of professional
confidence.
4. The evidence also establishes the commission of unethical conduct by
respondent for serving as lawyer of Panganiban and Lopez . . . and for himself
filing criminal charges against complainant which were later dismissed. The
cases wherein respondent served as lawyer for the adversary of complainant or
filed by respondent himself against complainant are the following:
1. Carlos Panganiban v. Federico Suntay, Civil Case No. 4306-M, CFI,
Branch VII, Malolos, Bulacan;
2. Narciso Lopez v. Federico Suntay, Civil Case No. 4726-M, CFI,
Branch II, Malolos, Bulacan;

3. Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay, I.S. No. 77-1523, Office of the

Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan;

4. Magno Dinglasan v. Federico Suntay, Civil Case No. 112764, CFI,

Branch XX, Manila; and

5. Rafael G. Suntay and Magno Dinglasan v. Federico C. Suntay, I.S.

No. 74-193, Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, for violation of P.D.
296.
While there may be validity to respondent's contention that it is not improper for a
lawyer to file a case against a former client, especially when the professional
relationship had ended several years before, yet under the over-all circumstances
of the case at bar it can not be said that respondent acted ethically. Complainant
was not a mere client of respondent. He is an uncle and a political benefactor.
The parties for whom respondent filed cases against complainant were former
friends or associates of complainant whom respondent met when he was serving
as the lawyer and general adviser of complainant. The cases filed by respondent
were about properties which respondent had something to do with as counsel and
administrator of complainant.
xxx xxx xxx

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, undersigned respectfully submit that the evidence

establishes commission by respondent of malpractice for violating the
confidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and engaging in unethical conduct . . .
5

Resolution of this case was delayed despite receipt of the foregoing Report and
Recommendation in view of the Omnibus Motion to Remand Case to the Office of the
Solicitor General; Motion to Disqualify Solicitor Rogelio Dancel to Act on this Case and
Motion to Suspend Period to File Answer dated 18 January 1983 filed by respondent
principally accusing handling Solicitor Dancel of having given unwarranted advantage and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 preference to the complainant in the investigation of the case.
After several pleadings on the issue were filed by both respondent and Solicitor Rogelio
Dancel, the Court in its Resolution dated 22 August 1983 denied respondent's motion to
disqualify Solicitor Dancel and required the OSG to proceed with the investigation of this
case. However, no further proceedings were conducted by the OSG until the records of the
case together with other cases were turned over to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) on 19 May 1988.
After almost three (3) years from the time the records of this case were turned over to it,
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted to this Court on 11 May 2001 Resolution
No. XIV-2001-169 adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner finding respondent guilty as charged. The IBP recommended
that respondent Atty. Suntay be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years for
immoral conduct. In so recommending the Investigating Commissioner adopted in toto
the findings of the OSG in its Report and Recommendation dated 14 October 1982. In our
Resolution of 5 September 2001 we noted the foregoing IBP Resolution. However, in view
of the penalty involved, this case was referred to the Court En Banc for final action
pursuant to our Resolution dated 18 January 2000, Sec. 2, par. (b), in A.M. No. 99-12-08-
SC. 6
After a review of the records of this case, the Court finds the IBP Recommendation to be
well taken. As found by both the OSG and the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent
Atty. Rafael G. Suntay acted as counsel for clients in cases involving subject matters
regarding which he had either been previously consulted by complainant or which he had
previously helped complainant to administer as the latter's counsel and confidant from
1956 to 1964. Thus in Civil Cases Nos. 4306-M and 4726-M respondent acted as counsel
for estranged business associates of complainant, namely, Carlos Panganiban and
Narciso Lopez, the subject matter of which were the two (2) fishponds which respondent
had previously helped to administer.
On the other hand, I.S. No. 77-1523 for false testimony and grave oral defamation before
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, and Civil Case No. 112764 for damages
before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, were filed in behalf of Magno Dinglasan, a
former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) official, regarding whose alleged demand for
P150,000.00 from complainant in exchange for the destruction of the latter's record in the
BIR, respondent had previously advised complainant to disregard. Civil Case No. 117624
and I.S. No. 77-1523 were precisely filed against complainant because the latter had
previously testified on the alleged demand made by Dinglasan. Although respondent
denied that there was ever such a demand made by Dinglasan, the point is that his word on
the matter, i.e., whether there was in fact such a demand, would carry much weight against
complainant considering that he was the latter's counsel in 1957 or 1958 when the alleged
demand was made. In addition, respondent initiated the prosecution of complainant in I.S.
No. 74-193 for violation of P.D. No. 296 7 for the disappearance of the two (2) creeks,
namely, Sapang Malalim and Sapang Caluang, previously traversing complainant's
fishpond in Bulacan covered by TCT No. T-15674 by using information obtained while he
was in possession of the certificate of title and the blueprint plan of the property.
As the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 21.01. — A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
b) When required by law;

c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his

employees or associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.01. — A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to
his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge
of the circumstances consents thereto.

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after termination of
the attorney-client relation. 8 As his defense to the charges, respondent averred that
complainant failed to specify the alleged confidential information used against him. Such a
defense is unavailing to help respondent's cause for as succinctly explained in Hilado v.
David — 9
Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations,
a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and
well known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of the dealings
between an attorney and a client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to
the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant's cause. And the theory would be productive of other
unsalutary results. To make the passing of confidential communication a
condition precedent, i.e., to make the employment conditioned on the scope and
character of the knowledge acquired by an attorney in determining his right to
change sides, would not enhance the freedom of litigants, which is to be
sedulously fostered, to consult with lawyers upon what they believe are their
rights in litigation. The condition would of necessity call for an investigation of
what information the attorney has received and in what way it is or it is not in
conflict with his new position. Litigants would in consequence be wary in going to
an attorney, lest by an unfortunate turn of the proceeding, if an investigation be
held, the court should accept the attorney's inaccurate version of the facts that
came to him . . .

Hence, the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare relationship of
attorney and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This
stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from
fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded
suspicion of unprofessional practice . . . It is founded on principles of public
policy, on good taste . . . [T]he question is not necessarily one of the rights of the
parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional
standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife,
not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance
of treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, IBP Resolution No. XIV-2001-169 dated 29 April
2001 is adopted and approved. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client
relationship and for unethical conduct, respondent Atty. Rafael G. Suntay is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon the finality hereof.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C. J., Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-
Santiago; Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez and Corona, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Of the then CFI-Bulacan.

2. Also of the CFI-Bulacan.
3. Of the then CFI-Manila.
4. Directing all Persons, Natural or Juridical, to Renounce Possession and Move Out of
Portions of Rivers, Creeks, Esteros, Drainage Channels and Other Similar Waterways
Encroached Upon by Them and Prescribing Penalty for Violation Hereof.
5. Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 207-214.
6. Referral of Administrative Matters and Cases to the Divisions of the Court or to the Chief
Justice and Chairmen of Divisions for Appropriate Actions.
7. See Note 4.
8. Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility.
9. 84 Phil. 569, 578-579 (1949).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com