ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 4461.February, 5, 2001]

DEZA JR., et al. vs. ATTY. LEGASPI, JR., et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

A.C. No. 4461(Inocencio B. Deza, Jr., et al. vs. Attys. Generozo V. Legaspi, Jr. and Nimfa Ponce (whose married name is Nimfa P. Camitan).

This is a complaint filed by Inocencio B. Deza, Jr., Lina A. Layson, and Lourdes V. Ledesma, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President, and Vice President, respectively of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), seeking the disbarment of Attys. Generoso V. Legaspi, Jr. and Nimfa P. Camitan of the PNB Legal Department for betrayal of trust, gross misconduct in office, and willful violation of the lawyer's oath. Complainants allege that on February 21, 1995, respondent lawyers filed an anonymous complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman accusing them of violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Government Employees, and the National Internal Revenue Code. The complaint was in connection with the health care contract entered into between PNB and Philamcare Health Systems (Philamcare) on December 29, 1994 whereby employees of PNB were placed under the mandatory coverage of the Philamcare Comprehensive Health Care Maintenance Program. Complainants allege that respondents had reviewed and indorsed the contract in question to the management of PNB so that, in filing the criminal case against them, respondents "treacherously and wrongfully double-crossed and prejudiced their client by a malicious breach of their professional duties, and/or inexcusable negligence and/or ignorance."

In their comment, respondents deny that complainants are their clients because the fact is that they are all simply employees of PNB. They allege that they were not in any way personally involved in the review, execution, and implementation of the health care contract in question as they are in the Litigation and Collection Division of the Legal Department of the PNIB. At the time the contract was referred to their department, respondents allege, Philamcare had already been announced as the health maintenance organization (HMO) company of PNB so all that the Documentation Division of the Legal Department did was merely to review the contract's language and phraseology to see that it was consistent with the guidelines which the complainants themselves previously issued. Respondents dispute complainants' claim that the health care contract was an official transaction of PNB as the same was entered into by the then President of PNB without the consent of the Board of Directors contrary to the PNB Charter. Respondents also deny filing the anonymous complaint before the Ombudsman although they support the same. They claim that they are not precluded from questioning the validity of the contract and bringing criminal charges against complainants.

Respondents accuse complainants of forum shopping by not informing this Court that they had also filed a criminal case against respondents for violation of Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code (betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor) pending in the Metropolitan Trial Court pf Manila.

The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant which, in its report of December 15, 2000, recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.

The recommendation is well taken.

Respondents are members of the Legal Department of the PNB. They are not attorneys of the bank's management but only employees of one of the bank's departments. As the Office of the Bar Confidant correctly pointed out in its report:

Complainants being officers of PNB did not make them one and the same with the PNB.

A corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it. (Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 673)

It is therefore safe to conclude that respondents were retained, if at all, by PNB and not by the individual officers in their personal capacity. Hence, complainants' allegation of breach of the attorney-client relationship by herein respondents is bereft of any merit..

Whatever legal services respondents may have rendered in relation to the health care contract was not rendered to complainants as the latter's attorneys but as employees of the PNB. Any misdeeds they may have committed partook the nature of a violation of their official duty rather than a breach of their duties as members of the Bar (See Cruz v. Cabal, 12 SCRA 270 (1964)).

On the other hand, respondents' contention that the filing of this case for disbarment as well as a criminal case against them constitutes forum shopping by complainants in violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is likewise untenable.

The complaint for violation of Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code is separate and distinct from the complaint for disbarment filed in this case. The object of disbarment proceedings is not to convict the respondent of a crime but simply to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of an officer of the Court (In re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577 (1904)). Since disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for the public welfare, rules concerning procedure, including the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94, do not apply (See Pimentel, Jr. v. Liorente, Adm. Case No. 4680, Aug. 29, 2000).

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against Attys. Generoso V. Legaspi, Jr. and Nimfa P. Camitan and the latter's countercomplaint for forum shopping against complainants Inocencio B. Deza, Jr., Lina A. Layson, and Lourdes V. Ledesma are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE