A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016 The Court issued three resolutions dated requirig Atty.

ions dated requirig Atty. Intong THE LETTER WAS A MERE INVITATION FOR As correctly pointed out by Commissioner Villanueva, the
DATU BUDENCIO E. DUMANLAG, Complainant, to file his comment, to show cause for his failure to file, and to COMPLAINANT TO ATTEND A SETTLEMENT AND Court issued three resolutions dated July 19, 2010, March 9,
v. ATTY. WINSTON B. INTONG, Respondent. pay a fine of P1,000.00 for such failure. But all three were left PRE-LITIGATION CONFERENCE, WHICH 2011, and September 28, 2011, requiring respondent to file his
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: unheeded. Thus, the Court dispensed with the filing of Atty. RESPONDENT, AS A LAWYER, IS OBLIGATED TO comment, to show cause for his failure to file, and to pay a fine
Intong’s comment, and referred the case to the IBP for PURSUE UNDER RULE 1.04, CANON 1 OF CPR; of P1,000.00 for such failure. But all three were left unheeded.
investigation, report and recommendation. Respondent ought to know that orders of the court are "not
FACTS: Dumanlag filed a complaint against Atty. Intong for Complainant's allegation of force and compulsion mere requests but directives which should have been complied
gross misconduct and negligence. Dumanlag, who claimed to accompanying the letter dated February 8, 2010 is negated by with promptly and completely." "He disregarded the oath he
be a leader of the Indigenous People of Malaybalay, had The IBP also had given several opportunities for Atty. Intong to
the very words used therein. Respondent described said letter took when he was accepted to the legal profession 'to obey
received a letter request from Atty. Intong which stated that: express his side on the charge during the investigation thereof
in the opening paragraph as a "letter request for [complainant's] the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal
but neither did he file a position paper as required by the
presence." He then went on to close the letter with "[h]oping authorities.' x x x His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer
Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP had proposed the
for your [(complainant's)] preferential and positive action on who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and
xxx Please consider this as a letter dismissal of the complaint for failure of the complainant to
this matter" and "[m]y highest esteem." As aptly pointed out by is expected to stand foremost in complying with court
request for your presence on 12 substantiate his accusations against Atty. Intong.
Commissioner Villanueva in his Report and Recommendation, directives as an officer of the court," pursuant to Canon 11
February 2010 at 2:00 o'clock in the the letter was "carefully worded, done in a respectful manner." of the CPR, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall observe
afternoon located at Purok 11, In view of Atty. Intong's propensity to ignore the lawful orders There was absolutely nothing on the face of the letter that and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
Poblacion, Valencia City, Bukidnon. of the Court, as well as the IBP-CBD, which found him to be would justify complainant's indignation against any officers x x x."
unbecoming as officer of the court, Atty. Intong was suspended discourtesy or discrimination against him. The letter was a
This is for the settlement and from the practice of law for six (6) months. mere invitation for complainant to attend a settlement and
pre-litigation conference prior to any The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other
pre-litigation conference, which respondent, as a lawyer, is
legal action against you as ISSUE: Is Atty. Intong guilty of gross misconduct and pleading range from reprimand, warning with fine, suspension,
obligated to pursue. Under Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code
complainant by my client JAIME negligence?hanrobleslaw and, in grave cases, disbarment. In the present case, the Court
of Professional Responsibility (CPR), "[a] lawyer shall
AJOC & ENCARNACION
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if finds too harsh the recommendation of the IBP Board of
DUMANLAG-AJOC ofLapu-lapu St.,
HELD: No. Dumanlag had failed to discharge the burden of it will admit of a fair settlement." There was nothing wrong, Governors that Atty. Intong to be suspended from the
Valencia City.
provig his accusation of gross misconduct on the part of Atty. therefore, with respondent's efforts to set up a conference practice of law for a period of six months. After all,
Intong. However, the Supremed Court REPRIMANDS Atty. between complainant and his clients. respondent did file his mandatory conference brief before the
Hoping for your preferential and IBP where he cited the Resolution dated July 19, 2010 of the
positive action on this matter. Thank Intong for refusing to obey lawful orders of the Court and the
IBP, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act NO VIOLATION OF CANON 22 OF THE CPR; Court, requiring him to file his comment to the complaint. He
you very much. My highest esteem. also attended the mandatory conference/hearing scheduled by
xxx or offense shall be dealt with more severely.
With respect to the claim of exorbitant notarization fees, the the IBP, although he failed to file his position paper despite the
same deserves scant consideration in view of complainant's directive to do so. Under the circumstances, and considering
DUMANLAG FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN failure to offer corroborative proof to support his bare that this appears to be respondent's first infraction, the
However, Dumanlag took offense with the aforequoted letter allegations. While a lawyer is mandated under Canon 20 of
OF PROVING HIS ACCUSATIONS OF GROSS Court finds it proper to reprimand him with warning that
and alleged that force and compulsion accompanied the same. the CPR to charge only fair and reasonable fees, and that
MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF ATTY. INTONG; commission of the same or similar infraction will be dealt
To bolster his indignation, Dumanlag cited RA 8371 (The he may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his with more severely. This is consistent with the ruling in the
Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act) specifically Section 21 which
It has been consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal recent case of Andres v. Nambi,37 where respondent therein was
accords equal protection and non discrimination of Indigenous
presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until profession as embodied in the CPR,34 such violation must be found to have ignored the Court's resolution directing him to
Cultural Communities and Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs).
the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof, file comment, and to have failed to attend the mandatory
presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his which was not done in this case. conference before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
oath. Thus, in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests despite notice, as well as to file his position paper. Since it was
upon the complainant, and for the Court to exercise its ATTY. INTONG CANNOT ESCAPE also his first infraction, respondent therein was merely
Dumanlag also averred that the incorporation papers of the two
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS REPETITIVE reprimanded by the Court, as in this case.
Corporations of which he was president, were supposed to be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. DISREGARD OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE COURT
notarized at Atty. Intong’s law office, but the charge for
However, in this case, complainant failed to discharge the REQUIRING HIM TO FILE HIS COMMENT TO THE
notarization amounting to P10,000.00 was "very dear, very
burden of proving his accusations of gross misconduct on COMPLAINT AND TO PAY THE FINE IMPOSED
expensive," and complainant could not afford the same. He
the part of the respondent. UPON HIM FOR HIS FAILURE TO DO SO; THE
then accused respondent of soliciting cases for purposes of gain,
PROPER PENALTY IS REPRIMAND NOT
which act constitutes malpractice, citing Section 27, Rule 138
SUSPENSION;
of the Rules of Court.