SECOND DIVISION
DR. GIL Y.
GAMILLA,
NORMA S. CALAGUAS, IRMA E. POTENCIANO,EDITHA OCAMPO, LUZ
DE GUZMAN, GLICERIA BALDRES,FERDINAND LIMOS,
MA. LOURDES C. MEDINA, HIDELITA GABO,CORAZON CUI,
REMEDIOS
T. GARCIA, RENE ARNEJO,RENE LUIS TADLE,
LAURA ABARA, PHILIP AGUINALDO,BENEDICTA
ALAVA,
LEONCIO CASAL, CARMELITA ESPINA,ZENAIDA FAMORCA,
CELSO NIERA, CESAR REYES,NATIVIDAD SANTOS
AND MAFEL YSRAEL,
Complainants, |
A.C.
No.
4763
March 20, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
EDUARDO J.
MARIÑO JR.,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
THIS DISBARMENT CASE EMANATED
from an intra-union leadership dispute some seventeen (17) years ago
that
spilled over to the instant complaint alleging impropriety and
double-dealing
in the disbursement of sums of money entrusted by the University of
Sto.
Tomas to respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. as president of
the UST Faculty Union and his core of officers and directors for
distribution
among faculty members of the university.[1]
For a sense of history,
sometime in 1986 respondent Atty. Mariño Jr. as president of the
UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a collective
bargaining
agreement with the management of UST for the provision of economic
benefits
amounting to P35 million. Instead of creating a harmonious
relationship
between the contracting parties, the collective bargaining agreement
regrettably
engendered disputes arising from the interpretation and implementation
thereof one of which even reached this Court.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The 1986 collective
bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one
unfortunately
failed. In 1989 the faculty members of UST went on strike and as
a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of sixteen (16)
officers
and directors of the UST Faculty Union including respondent. The
dismissal precipitated anew bitter legal battles which were resolved by
this Court in favor of the dismissed employees by ordering their
reinstatement
with back wages.[3]
In 1990 Secretary of
Labor Ruben D. Torres prescribed the terms and conditions of a five
(5)-year
collective bargaining agreement between UST and the UST Faculty Union
retroactive
to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired. In
the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also
entered into a compromise agreement for the payment of P7,000,000.00
from
which P5,000,000.00 was intended to settle the back wages and other
claims
of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors of the UST Faculty
Union,
including herein respondent, who were earlier ordered reinstated by
this
Court, and the sum of P2,000,000.00 to satisfy the remaining
obligations
of UST under the 1986 collective bargaining agreement. It appears
from the record that only P5,000,000.00 for the back wages and other
claims
of respondent Atty. Mariño and other concerned union officers
and
directors was paid immediately by UST while the satisfaction of the
balance
of P2,000,000.00 was apparently deferred to some unspecified time.cralaw:red
In 1992 UST and the
UST Faculty Union executed a memorandum of agreement to settle the
salary
increases and other benefits under the collective bargaining agreement
effective 1988 for the period 1 June 1991 to 31 May 1993 for a total of
P42,000,000.00. It was agreed that the benefits accruing from 1 June
1991
to 31 October 1992 were to be taken from the sum of P42,000,000.00
which
UST would release directly to the faculty members, while the remainder
of the P42,000,000.00 package would be ceded by UST to the UST Faculty
Union which would then disburse the balance to cover the benefits from
1 November 1992 to 31 May 1993. The memorandum of agreement also
charged the amount of P2,000,000.00 agreed upon in the 1990 compromise
agreement as well as the attorney's fees of Atty. Mariño worth
P4,200,000.00
against the P42,000,000.00 outlay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In accordance with the
memorandum of agreement, UST took care of the disbursement of
P20,226,221.60
from the total commitment of P42,000,000.00 to pay for the following
expenses:
(a) P2,000,000.00 as payment for unpaid obligations to faculty members
under the 1986 collective bargaining agreement; (b) P13,833,597.96 for
the salary increases of faculty members from 1 June 1991 to 31 October
1992; (c) P192,623.64 for telephone, electricity and water billings;
and,
(d) P4,200,000.00 paid to the UST Faculty Union as attorney's
fees.
The expenses left a collectible sum of P21,773,778.40 from the
obligation
of P42,000,000.00. The university however relinquished only
P18,038,939.37
to the UST Faculty Union which was P3,734,839.03 short of the balance
of
P21,773,778.40. In the meantime, the UST Faculty Union placed
P9,766,570.01
of the amount received from UST in the money market to earn as it did
make
P1,146,381.27 in interest.cralaw:red
For benefits corresponding
to 1 November 1992 to 31 May 1993, the UST Faculty Union charged
against
the short-changed amount of P18,038,939.37 a total of P16,723,638.27
consisting
of the following expenses: (a) P10,521,800.64 as the amount paid for
salary
increases beginning 1 November 1992 to 31 May 1993; (b) P578,296.31
which
was refunded to the faculty members whose salaries were reduced as a
result
of their participation in the 1989 strike; (c) P2,045,192.97 as amount
paid to the faculty members representing their December 1992 bonus;
and,
(d) P3,578,348.35 for reimbursements to the University of Santo
Tomas.
The expenses left a balance of P5,050,140.13, i.e., the remainder of
P1,315,301.10
out of the P18,038,939.37 earlier turned over by UST to the UST Faculty
Union, plus the deficit amount of P3,734,839.03 which UST later turned
over to the UST Faculty Union after previously failing to deliver the
amount.
To the sum of P5,050,140.13, the UST Faculty Union added the interest
earnings
of P1,146,381.27 from money market investments as well as the amount of
P192,632.64 representing the disallowed amount of expenses earlier
deducted
by UST from the P42,000,000.00 package. All in all, the money
left
in the possession of the UST Faculty Union was P6,389,154.04 which it
distributed
among the faculty members in 1994.cralaw:red
Complainants as members
of the UST Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of transparency
among
the officers and directors of the union in the management and
disbursement
of the monetary benefits for the faculty members. They initiated
two (2) complaints with the Office of the Regional Director, National
Capital
Region, Department of Labor and Employment, one on 18 October 1995,
docketed
as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022, and another, on 16 November 1996,
docketed
as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028. In both pleadings, they prayed for
the expulsion of the officers and directors of the union led by
respondent
Atty. Mariño because of their alleged failure to account for the
balance of the P42,000,000.00 ceded to them by UST and the attorney's
fees
amounting to P4,200,000.00 which they deducted from the benefits
allotted
to faculty members.[4]
On 2 July 1997 complainants
filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Mariño
accusing him of (a) compromising their entitlements under the 1986
collective
bargaining agreement without the knowledge, consent or ratification of
the union members, and worse, for only P2,000,000.00 when they could
have
received more than P9,000,000.00; (b) failing to account for the
P7,000,000.00
received by him and other officers and directors in the UST Faculty
Union
under the 1990 compromise agreement; (c) lack of transparency in the
administration
and distribution of the remaining balance of the P42,000,000.00 package
under the 1992 memorandum of agreement; (d) refusal to remit and
account
for the P4,200,000.00 in favor of the faculty members although the
amount
was denominated as attorney's fees. Complainants asserted that
respondent
violated Rules 1.01[5]
and 1.02[6]
of Canon 1; Rule 15.08[7]
of Canon 15; Rules 16.01,[8]
16.02[9]
and 16.03[10]
of Canon 16; and Rule 20.04[11]
of Canon 20, of the Code of Professional Responsibility.cralaw:red
On 4 November 1997,
after several extensions Atty. Mariño filed his comment on the
complaint.
He alleged that the issues raised therein were the same issues involved
in the two (2) complaints before the Bureau of Labor Relations and
therefore
constituted forum-shopping, and further explained that he had
adequately
accounted for the disbursement of the money demanded by complainants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 18 March 1998 we
referred the disbarment complaint and the comment thereon to the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation
within
ninety (90) days from notice thereof.cralaw:red
On 18 May 1999 we received
the Report of IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro as well as the
Resolution
of 30 March 1999 of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and approving
the
Report which found the complaint meritorious and suspended respondent
Atty.
Mariño from the practice of law "until such time that the
required
detailed accounting of the questioned remittances made by UST to the
UST
[Faculty Union] during his incumbency as President and Legal Counsel
has
been officially submitted and reported to the UST [Faculty Union]
and to the IBP."
On 7 September 1999
respondent filed his comment on the IBP Report and Resolution and
alleged
the same contentions he previously asserted. On 27 October 1999
we
referred the case back to the IBP for a more detailed investigation and
submission of report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from
notice.cralaw:red
In the meantime, or
on 27 May 1999, the Regional Director found merit in the two (2)
complaints
docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022 and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028
and
ordered the expulsion of respondent and the other officers and
directors
of the union led by respondent Atty. Mariño because of their
failure
to account for the balance of the P42,000,000.00 that had been
delivered
to them by the management of UST, and their collection of exorbitant
and
illegal attorney's fees amounting to P4,200,000.00.[12]
On 9 March 2000 the
Bureau of Labor Relations in the appeal docketed as
BLR-A-TR-52-25-10-99
set aside the Order of the Regional Director. It found that the
balance
of the P42,000,000.00 which UST delivered to the UST Faculty Union had
been fully and adequately accounted for by respondent and the other
officers
and directors of the union.[13]
Nonetheless, the Bureau of Labor Relations ordered respondent and the
other
officers and directors of the union to distribute the attorney's fees
of
P4,200,000.00 among the faculty members and to immediately hold the
elections
for union officers and directors in view of the expiration of their
respective
terms of office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 16 March 2001 the
Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations was affirmed in toto by the
Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60657.[14]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals was elevated to this Court,
docketed
G.R. No. 149763, where the case is allegedly still pending resolution.cralaw:red
On 25 September 2002
we received the detailed Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner
Lydia A. Navarro and the IBP Resolution of 3 August 2002 of the Board
of
Governors adopting and approving the Report which recommended the
lifting
of Atty. Mariño's suspension from law practice since he had
sufficiently
accounted for the funds in question.cralaw:red
For a start, it appears
that complainants did not file a petition with this Court to review the
IBP Resolution exonerating respondent from the accusations against him
and lifting his suspension from the practice of law, an action
otherwise
required under Sec. 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court if the case
against
respondent could still proceed in this Court. Nevertheless since
the IBP Resolution is merely recommendatory, and considering further
the
instructional value of this case to members of the Bench, many of whom
are engaged simultaneously in other businesses or professions, we find
it prudent and judicious to decide the instant case once and for all.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, there are ethical
lapses on the part of respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. in
the manner by which he secured the P7,000,000.00 by virtue of the
compromise
agreement and the P4,200,000.00 attorney's fees under the memorandum of
agreement. Although the record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations
found respondent as having adequately accounted for the disbursement of
the funds which the UST Faculty Union received through the series of
agreements
with the management of UST, this Court believes that Atty.
Mariño
failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for
the
compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union
president,
union attorney and interested party being one of the dismissed
employees
seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained the
attorney's
fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the
circumstances
justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union.cralaw:red
As one of the sixteen
(16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the
University
of Santo Tomas for their illegal dismissal, respondent was involved in
obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as
concurrent
lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise
agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is
"whether
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
thereof."[15]
In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an
attorney
to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or worse,
actually
impels him to do less than his best for his client.cralaw:red
Thus it has been held
that an attorney or any other person occupying fiduciary relations
respecting
property or persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own
benefit
the property committed to his custody for management.[16]
This rule is entirely independent of whether fraud has intervened as in
fact no fraud need be shown; no excuse will be heard from an attorney
because
the rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing oneself
in positions that ordinarily excite conflict between self-interest and
integrity.cralaw:red
Necessarily, a lawyer
cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding
against
a party even with the client's consent after the lawyer brings suit in
his own behalf against the same defendant if it is uncertain whether
the
defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments.[17]
No doubt, a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the
subject
matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client.[18]
In the instant case,
quite apart from the issue of validity of the 1990 compromise
agreement,
this Court finds fault in respondent's omission of that basic sense of
fidelity to steer clear of situations that put his loyalty and devotion
to his client, the faculty members of UST, open to question.
Atty.
Mariño both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound
to protect and advance the interest of union members and the bargaining
unit above his own. This obligation was jeopardized when his
personal
interest as one of the dismissed employees of UST complicated the
negotiation
process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement
that
rightly or wrongly brought money to him and the other dismissed union
officers
and directors, seemingly or otherwise at the expense of the faculty
members.cralaw:red
The facts would affirm
this observation. In brokering the compromise agreement,
respondent
received P5,000,000.00 as compensation for the dismissed union
officials
while only P2,000,000.00 apparently settled UST's obligations in favor
of the faculty members under the 1986 collective bargaining agreement
when
their original claim amounted to at least P9,000,000.00. Worse,
the
P2,000,000.00 concession for accountabilities demandable long ago in
1986
was paid only in 1992 under the memorandum of agreement, or a period of
more than two (2) years after the execution of the compromise
agreement,
in contrast to the immediate payment of the P5,000,000.00 to Atty.
Mariño
and the other union officers and directors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Atty. Mariño
ought to have disclosed to the members of the UST Faculty Union, if not
the entire bargaining unit of faculty members, his interest in the
compromise
agreement as one of the dismissed union officers seeking compensation
for
the claim of back wages and other forms of damages, and also the
reasons
for reducing the claim of the faculty members from more than
P9,000,000.00
to only P2,000,000.00. As the record shows, the explanations for
respondent's actions were disclosed only years after the consummation
of
the compromise agreement, particularly only after the instant complaint
for disbarment was filed against him, when the accounting should have
been
forthcoming either before or during the settlement of the labor case
against
the management of UST.cralaw:red
Equally important, since
respondent and the other union officers and directors were to get for
themselves
a lion's share of the compromise as they ultimately did, Atty.
Mariño
should have unambiguously divulged and made clear to his client the
compelling
probability of conflict of interests. He should have voluntarily
turned over the reins of legal representation to another lawyer who
could
have acted on the matter with a deep sense of impartiality over the
several
claims against UST and an unfettered commitment to the cause of the
faculty
members.cralaw:red
Furthermore, there was
lack of notice and transparency in respondent's dual role as lawyer and
president of the UST Faculty Union when he obtained P4,200,000.00 as
attorney's
fees. Without ruling on the validity of the collection of
attorney's
fees so as not to pre-empt the decision in G.R. No. 149763 on this
issue,
the record does not show any justification for such huge amount of
compensation
nor any clear differentiation between his legal services and his tasks
as union president comprising in all probability the same duties for
which
he had collected a hefty compensation as attorney for the union.cralaw:red
The situation of Atty.
Mariño is not any different from that of an executor or
administrator
of an estate who may not charge against the estate any professional fee
for legal services rendered by him because his efforts as such are
already
paid for in his capacity as executor or administrator.[19]
Indeed, he could have avoided complaints and perceptions of
self-enrichment
arising from the levy of attorney's fees by spelling out the terms and
bases for the claim of P4,200,000.00 since the compensation for his
services
as president of the union should have otherwise covered his legal
services
as well.cralaw:red
Regardless of the motivations
of respondent in perfecting the compromise agreement or demanding the
inexplicable
attorney's fees, his actions were not transparent enough to allow the
bargaining
unit ample information to decide freely and intelligently.
Clearly,
he violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requiring
every lawyer to "observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings
and transactions with his clients." Lawyers are vanguards in the
bastion of justice so they are without doubt expected to have a bigger
dose of service-oriented conscience and a little less of self-interest.cralaw:red
As indispensable part
of the system of administering justice, attorneys must comply strictly
with the oath of office and the canons of professional ethics - a duty
more than imperative during these critical times when strong and
disturbing
criticisms are hurled at the practice of law. The process of
imbibing
ethical standards can begin with the simple act of openness and candor
in dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter towards the
ideal
that a lawyer's vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary business
proposition
but a serious matter of public interest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence on record
proves that Atty. Mariño failed to disclose at crucial moments
significant
information about the manner by which he secured the P7,000,000.00 by
virtue
of the compromise agreement and the P4,200,000.00 attorney's fees under
the memorandum of agreement. A simple accounting of the money
that
he and others concerned received from UST, as well as an explanation on
the details of the agreements, would have enlightened the faculty
members
about the probability of conflict of interests on respondent's part and
guided them to look for alternative actions to protect their own
interests.cralaw:red
In light of the irrefragable
fact of respondent's misdemeanor, a possible mitigation of his
actionable
conduct was that the attorney's fees and the compromise agreement were
negotiated and finalized under the most strenuous circumstances where
his
leadership and that of his core officers and directors were incessantly
challenged by complainants allegedly aided by factions within UST
itself.
He might also have believed that the settlement achieved immense
benefits
for his constituents which would not have been otherwise obtained if he
had chosen to relinquish the rein of legal representation to some other
lawyer. Finally, it was not improbable for him to suppose though
wrongly that he could represent and in some manner serve the interests
of all of them, including his own, by pushing for and seeking the
approval
of the agreements himself.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We reiterate that the
objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the
individual
attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the
judiciary
and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the
court.
Restorative justice not retribution is our goal in this type of
proceedings.
In view of this, instead of taking a more stern measure against
respondent,
a reprimand and a warning would be sufficient disciplinary action in
accordance
with our ruling in Sumangil v. Sta. Romana.[21]
Hence, Atty. Mariño is admonished to refrain from all
appearances
and acts of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict of
interests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and
dedication
befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor, fairness
and
loyalty in all transactions with his client.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. is REPRIMANDED for his misconduct
with
a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon a
repetition of the same act.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 124.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union v. National Labor Relations
Commission,
G.R. No. 90445, 2 October 1990, 190 SCRA 215.
[3]
University of Sto. Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No.
89920, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 758.
[4]
Complainants herein filed two (2) other cases with the Office of the
Regional
Director, National Capital Region, Department of Labor and Employment,
i.e., NCR-OD-M-9610-001 and NCR-OD-M-9611-009, consisting of charges
against
the continued incumbency of respondent Atty. Mariño and other
officers
and directors of the UST Faculty Union, which were consolidated with
NCR-OD-M-9412-022
and NCR-OD-M-9510-028.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rule 1.01, Canon 1: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."
[6]
Rule 1.02, Canon 1: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system."
[7]
Rule 15.08, Canon 15: "A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to
his
client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rule 16.01, Canon 16: "A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client."
[9]
Rule 16.02, Canon 16: "A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate
and apart from his own and those of others kept by him."
[10]
Rule 16.03, Canon 16: "A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand x x x x"
[11]
Rule 20.02, Canon 20: "A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or fraud."
[12]
Penned by Regional Director Maximo B. Lim of the Department of Labor
and
Employment - National Capital Region.
[13]
Penned by Director Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio Jr. of the Bureau of
Labor
Relations.
[14]
Penned by then Associate Justice (now Associate Justice of this Court)
Romeo J. Callejo Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C.
Dacudao
and Perlita J. Tria Tirona of the Fourteenth Division.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Tiania v. Ocampo, A.C. No. 2285, 12 August 1991, 200 SCRA 472, 479
citing
In re Dela Rosa, 27 Phil. 258 (1914).
[16]
Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343 (1923).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
R. Agpalo, Legal Ethics 233 (1989), citing American Bar Association
Opinion
132 (15 March 1935).
[18]
Ibid., citing American Bar Association Opinion 288 (11 October 1954).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
See Sec. 7, Rule 85, Rules of Court; Chung Muy Co's Administrator v.
Quioc,
23 Phil. 518 (1912).
[20]
See Sumangil v. Sta. Romana 84 Phil. 777 (1949).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Deles v. Aragonas Jr., A.C. No. 598, 28 March 1969, 27 SCRA 634. |