Reyes v. Chiong | Adm. Case No. 5148 | July 1, 2003 | Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Nature of the Case: Administrative case

Petitioner: Ramon P. Reyes
Respondents: Victorino T. Chiong Jr.
SUMMARY: Lawyers Atty. Reyes and Atty. Chiong represented two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen who are in
conflict against each other because of a sham investment. Upon suing Atty. Chiong’s client (Chia Hsien Pan) and the
issuance of an arrest warrant, Chiong moved to quash the warrant of arrest and also initiated a counter-suit that
was meant to harass Xu, Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga.
Commission San Juan’s findings confirm that the counter-suit in which Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga was
improperly impleaded was meant to harass these lawyers to obtain leverage. The Court held that Atty. Chiong’s
actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The Court reiterated that the aim of every lawsuit should be to
render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them (the parties), and therefore the respondent
should be suspended for 2 years.

TOPIC: CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

FACTS:

Summary of this section: Two lawyers (Atty. Reyes and Atty. Chiong) represented two Chinese-Taiwanese
businessmen who are in conflict against each other because of a sham investment. Upon suing Atty. Chiong’s client
(Chia Hsien Pan) and the issuance of an arrest warrant, Chiong moved to quash the warrant of arrest, plus initiated
a counter-suit that was meant to harass Xu, Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga.

• Sometime in 1998, Atty. Reyes represented Zonggi Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese business man who decided to institute
an action against Atty. Chiong’s client, Chia Hsien Pan.
• Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia
Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the latter
had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary
for the former to seek legal assistance.
• Xu, through herein complainant (Atty. Reyes), filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by
respondent (Atty. Chiong). The Complaint was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B. Salanga, who
then issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on October 27 and 29, 1998.
• Pan did not appear on both scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed
a Criminal Complaint for estafa against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. On April 8, 1999, the
Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest against Pan.
• Thereafter, Chiong filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest. Chiong also filed with the RTC of
Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution of
a business venture against Reyes, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
• When confronted by Reyes, Chiong explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute the civil action against
Atty. Reyes. Chiong claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if complainant would move for the
dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to reach a settlement.

IBP - Summary of this section: Commission San Juan’s findings confirm that the counter-suit in which Atty. Reyes
and Prosecutor Salanga was improperly impleaded was meant to harass these lawyers to obtain leverage. The IBP
recommended that Atty. Chiong be suspended for 2 years.
• Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the case was assigned by the IBP for investigation and report, averred
that complainant and Prosecutor Salanga had been impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884 on the sole basis of the Criminal
Complaint for estafa they had filed against respondents client. In his Comment, Chiong himself claimed that the
reason was the irregularities of the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent damages.

• Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed purposely to obtain
leverage against the estafa case, in which Chiong’s client was the defendant. There was no need to implead Atty.
Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had never participated in the business transactions between Pan and Xu.
Improper and highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted
by respondent on the alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga.

• Commissioner San Juan held that Chiong had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and Atty. Reyes in Civil Case
No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP adopted the investigating commissioners recommendation for his suspension from the practice of law for
two (2) years.

ISSUES + RULING:

WON Attorney Chiong’s actions violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? YES!

• Respondents actions do not measure up to this Canon. The civil case was for the collection of a sum of money,
damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture. It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but
was later modified to include complainant Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga.

• The Court agrees that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen
complainants allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa case.
o If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salangas resolution, they should have used
the proper procedural and administrative remedies. Respondent could have gone to the justice
secretary and filed a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor
Salangas decision to file an information for estafa.
o In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the estafa case was
filed without basis. Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant
and Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer,
respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of
the civil case had no justification.

• “His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to
the parties according to law, not to harass them”

• “Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of
their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren.
Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill
feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual
bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the
legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.”

DISPOSITION: Respondent was found guilty as charged and was SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice of
law.