SC Disbars Two Lawyers, Suspends Another
May 17, 2019
In separate rulings, the Supreme Court has disbarred two lawyers and suspended
another from the practice of law for committing various infractions.
In A.C. 12475, the High Court disbarred Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan and ordered his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately for violating Rules 1.01, 16.04,
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It also ordered him to return to
complainant Rosalie P. Domingo the P50,000, as legal deposit to cover the expenses
related to the expected litigation, and P100,000, as cash advance chargeable against
his appearance fees and other fees, with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the
date of the receipt of this Decision until full payment. Likewise, he was fined P5,000 for
disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD).
Complainant Domingo engaged the services of Atty. Sacdalan in 2016 to recover
possession of a parcel of land from illegal settlers in Binangonan, Rizal.
Rule 1.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. It instructs that as officers of the court, lawyers are
bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality,
honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. 16
Rule 16.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking. 17
On the other hand, Rule 18.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client's request for information. It is the lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly
updated on the developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the latter's
confidence.18
In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated of the Code based on the
substantial evidence presented by complainant.
“[T]he acts and omissions of respondent constitute malpractice, gross negligence and
gross misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and appalling indifference
to his duty to his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging
the trust reposed in him as a member of the Bar,” held the Court.
In A.C. No. 12457, the High Court also disbarred Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan and fined
him P5,000 for simple misconduct for his unethical behavior in writing a letter to the
Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur against complainant Rev. Fr. Jose P.
Zafra III.
Atty. Pagatpatan was the counsel on record of the respondents in the estafa case filed
by Fr. Zafra with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, Br. 40.
While the said criminal case was pending, Pagatpatan wrote the Bishop of Tandag
requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra for the latter’s activities, alleging the latter to
have concocted stories against his clients. Fr. Zafra, who was embarrassed because of
Atty. Pagatpatan’s “malicious” letter, was eventually investigated by the Board of
Consultors with the Bishop, where he was able to clear his name.
Fr. Zafra filed a complaint against Pagatpatan with the IBP-CBD for stirring
controversies by making the said letter, adding that the latter engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law despite a 2005 suspension order by the SC.
“Atty. Pagatpatan has made a mockery of this Court’s authority by defying this Court’s
suspension order for over eleven (11) years. If Fr. Zafra had not filed the instant case,
Atty. Pagatpatan would have continued disregarding the suspension order of this Court.
His actions clearly constitute gross misconduct as defined under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, which is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment,” the Court
held.
In A.C. No. 11641, the High Court suspended Atty. Jose M. Caringal from the practice of
law for three years.
The suspension stemmed from the administrative case filed by Marilu C. Turla before
the IBP-CBD. Turla was the petitioner in a special proceedings case before the RTC,
Quezon City, Br. 222, wherein Atty. Caringal was the counsel for the oppositor. Turla
accused Caringal of failing to attend the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III) Compliance Periods, as
required under Bar Matter No. 850 and for violation of his lawyer’s oath not to do any
falsehood.
“When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and motions
he filed, although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which was also
disrespectful of the court. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect and can result in the
expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and
actually violated his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence,” the Court
ruled.
(A.C. No. 12475, Domingo v. Sacdalan, March 26, 2019; ; A.C. No. 11641, Turla v.
Caringal, March 12, 2019)
---------------------------
Atty. Pagatpatan being the counsel for the defense in a case filed by Fr. Zafra, wrote a letter-request to
investigate Fr. Zafra which was found by the court as a threat tand force him to settle the estafa case
files against his client. And he admittedly practice law and defend the said clients despite of his
suspension from the practice of law.
He was disbarred in accordance with Section 27, Rule 138 Rules of the Court for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. A.C.
No. 12457, Zafra v. Pagatpatan, April 2, 2019
