Case Digest: In Re Montague &Dominguez, # Phil 577 (1904), G.R. No. 1107

In Re Montague &Dominguez, G.R. No. 1107, April 2, 1904

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

On or about the 15th day of November, 1902, the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands presented to the Supreme Court of said Islands a petition, and on or about January 15, 1903, a supplemental petition, alleging that Augustus A. Montagne and Frank E. Dominguez were practicing attorneys at law in the courts of said Islands, and were members of the firm of lawyers known as Montagne & Dominguez; and in said petition and supplemental petition the said Attorney-General charged said lawyers and said firm with having violated their oaths of office as attorneys at law and with failure to faithfully perform the duties of their office as such attorneys toward their clients.

This evidence is so voluminous that nothing more can be incorporated in the space given us to this opinion than a brief reference to it, and even that reference is to be confined to the facts of four of the most serious of the charges against the respondents, viz, the "Balmori" charge, the hacienda "Esperanza" charge, the "Cordona" charge, and the "Sarmiento" charge. These charges, and a brief statement of the evidence to sustain them, are as follows:

1) That the respondents accepted employment in February 1902, to represent one Felix Balmori in a criminal case, on appeal to the Supreme Court, receiving a retainer in said case; and that after entering upon such employment and accepting a fee pursuant thereto, they abandoned and deserted their said client’s case, to his great prejudice;

2) That they entered into a contract of employment with thousands of Filipinos in the Province of Pangasinan, in December, 1901, to represent said inhabitants in a suit or suits involving the title and possession to a large tract of land, and, after accepting retainers from their said clients, and rendering certain professional services in connection with such suits, they deserted and abandoned their clients' cases at a critical time, in violation of their contract, and to the great injury of such clients;

3) That they were retained in October 1901, to defend one Juan Cardona, who was then held as a prisoner on a criminal charge in the Province of Tarlac. The accused received from Cardona a retainer in his case and afterwards deserted him and failed to appear for him in court when his case was called for trial;

4) That they undertook, in November, 1901, the defense of one Ramon Sarmiento, who was charged with the crimes of estafa and falsification, and who was imprisoned on those charges in Manila; that though they were paid 500 pesos for their services, they subsequently, on an order of the court, obtained possession of 300 pesos which had been deposited in court as the money of said Sarmiento, and retained said sum of 300 pesos and appropriated it to their own use and benefit, against the instructions of their said client and to his injury;

5) That in seven other cases, called the " Cuyapo " case, the " Pearsons " case, the " Dorr " case, the " Gleason " case, the " Finnick " case, the " Quiao " case, and the " Mauline " case, the accused, as such attorneys, at various times mentioned in said petitions, after being employed and retained by clients, and after, receiving fees from their clients, abandoned their cases, and failed and neglected to render such faithful services for said clients as the law required.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondents should be disbarred. 

RULING

SC held that there should be added to these latter five charges those against the respondents in the " Pearson " case and in the " Mauline " case, thus making in all seven charges, no one of which is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment, and these seven charges are therefore dismissed.

Articles 356 and 357 of the Penal Code provide, in effect, for the punishment by a fine of an attorney who maliciously abuses his profession, or by inexcusable ignorance or negligence prejudices his client; and provide for punishment by-fine and suspension, in case an attorney having been retained to defend the cause of one party, subsequently without his consent, defends the opposite side in the same action.

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer, by the Supreme Court, for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for violation of the oaths prescribed in section 18, or for the willful disobedience of any lawful order of the Supreme Court or Courts of First Instance, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party, to an action or proceeding without authority so to do.

It will be noticed that under article 356 of the Penal Code the penalty for a violation of that article is a fine only; and, under article 357, a fine and suspension may be imposed only for one cause, viz, when an attorney is retained by one party and subsequently, and without the consent of that party, defends the opposite side in the same action.

In re Percy (36 N. Y., 651) the court went so far as to hold that inasmuch as the right to admission to practice law depended on good moral character, joined with requisite learning, this character should be preserved after admission; and that where the acts of an attorney were such as to destroy his credibility and character, the court had authority to disbar him.

Inasmuch as in the case at bar the charges and proofs do not show that the practices of the respondents constituted the gravest offends, we are inclined to take a lenient view of the charges. While we can not excuse the respondents, yet we are of opinion that total disbarment would be too severe a penalty for their acts.

The court, therefore, is of opinion that the respondents, Augustus A. Montagne and Frank E. Dominguez, should be suspended from the practice of their profession as lawyers in these Islands for a term of one year.