[ A.C. No. 12829 [Formerly CBD Case No.

15-4821], September 16, Her sister's best friend Paz Paguio subsequently introduced her to
2020 ] respondent for the settlement of Patrick's estate. Paz even accompanied
her and April to respondent's office for a meeting. After officially engaging
MYRIAM TAN-TE SENG, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DENNIS C. his services, respondent sent an email addressed to her and April,
PANGAN, RESPONDENT. requesting for documents relevant to the Extrajudicial Settlement of
Patrick's estate. Respondent quoted his legal service fee at P25,000.00.
DECISION During one of her visits to respondent's office, she gave respondent
pomelos from Davao.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
On September 23, 2014, she and respondent had a meeting at Gloria
Maris Restaurant together with April and Patricia. Respondent informed
The Case
them that April and Patricia's share in Patrick's estate would be minimal,
about PI00,000.00 only. Thus, she offered P500,000.00 to Patricia as full
In CBD 15-4821, Myriam Tan-Te Seng charged respondent Atty. Dennis settlement of her share. Respondent persuaded Patricia to accept her
C. Pangan with violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 15, kind gesture as it would pay for her college education. They also agreed
Rules 15.02 and 15.03; and Canon 21, Rule 21.02 of the Code of that April and Patricia would convey to her their interest in the Quezon
Professional Responsibility (CPR), the Lawyer's Oath, and Rule 138, City Townhouse which Patrick had paid in full.
Section 20 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, in CBD 16-4966,
complainant charged respondent with violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of
Sometime in November 2014, she requested an update from respondent.
the CPR.
To her surprise, the Extrajudicial Settlement drafted by respondent
excluded her as a legal heir. Based on her consultations with other
The Complaints people though, she and her husband were entitled to one half of their
son's estate because Patrick had no legitimate child of his own. She later
In CBD 15-4821,1 complainant essentially alleged: confirmed this through another lawyer who enlightened her on the
application of Article 9972 of the Civil Code.
On September 18, 2005, her son Patrick Marcel T. Te Seng married April
Marie M. Paguio. Patrick, however, was under severe depression and As stated, however, respondent's draft of the Extrajudicial Settlement
confided to her (complainant) that he was unhappy with his marriage. On deliberately omitted Patricia's status. Had it disclosed that Patricia was
July 28, 2014, about nine (9) years into the marriage, Patrick took his Neil's illegitimate daughter, it would have stripped Patricia of her
own life. entitlement to Patrick's estate in favor of her (complainant) and her
husband. The Extrajudicial Settlement, too, failed to state that Patricia
After Patrick's death, she discovered that her daughter-in-law April was was then only thirteen (13) years of age and had no capacity to sign legal
previously married to one Neil Paul M. Bermundo on June 23, 2000. documents.
April's marriage to Neil did not last long. Eventually, Neil filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of his marriage to April which the Regional Trial More, respondent deliberately excluded Patrick's 35% ownership of
Court (RTC) for Ligao City granted. The decree of nullity of marriage Sweetcraft Corporation from the Extrajudicial Settlement. Earlier,
became final on July 14, 2003. respondent had assisted April in transferring Patrick's shares in the said
company to the newly incorporated AMPB Sweetcraft Corporation for
On February 24, 2001, while April's marriage to Neil was still subsisting, purposes of circumventing corporation and tax laws, and to prevent her
April gave birth to Patricia Beatrice Paguio. On August 12, 2002, Patrick from acquiring Patrick's share.
executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgement and Affidavit for Delayed
Registration of Birth, claiming to be Patricia's father. These affidavits Saddened by this turn of events, she engaged a new counsel who invited
were submitted to the National Statistics Office (NSO). April to a conference to settle the issue amicably. But April declined.
Thus, she was forced to file a case for Annulment/Rescission of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 2012 and Transfer Certificate of Title No.
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, Issuance of Letters of Administration 004-2012011774. He learned that the property was registered in the
before RTC, Mandaluyong City. name of Myriam C. Tan, single, and deceased Patrick T. Te Seng
married to April Marie P. Te Seng.
Meanwhile, on August 7, 2015, respondent sued her before the Office of
the City Prosecutor, Pasig City for Falsification of Public Documents. A He informed Paz and complainant that April should personally visit the
Deed of Sale which she handed before to respondent in confidence was office so that they could sign before him and the notary public. As
the subject of the complaint. instructed, Paz, complainant, and April appeared before him the following
week. During their discussion, he learned that April had a daughter with
April was represented by two (2) lawyers in the cases pending between Patrick, named Patricia. He did not want Patricia to be left in the dark
them. But in reality, April's lawyer was actually respondent. In fact, in one saying "Ayokong kasuhan ako ng batangyan paglaki niya at sabihing mali
of their cases, respondent openly represented April before the Philippine ang documentation natin. " They then agreed to bring Patricia to him
Mediation Center. during their next meeting.

Respondent and April must have developed some liking for each other. This meeting subsequently took place in Gloria Maris Restaurant. There,
According to her sources, the two left for Hong Kong on November 15, they all agreed that the Extrajudicial Settlement will be signed by April
2015 on the same flight and came back together on November 18, 2015. and Patricia, sans complainant. In fact, it was complainant who approved
As confirmed by Certification3 dated June 17, 2016 of the Philippine the final draft of the Extrajudicial Settlement. It took more than a month
Statistics Authority (PSA), respondent married April on November before Patricia finally signed the Extrajudicial Settlement because she
27,2015 in Bacolor, Pampanga. was mad at complainant when she offered P500,000.00 in exchange for
her share.
In CBD 16-4966,4 complainant charged respondent with using abusive,
offensive, and improper language against her in his Counter-Affidavit As signed, the Extrajudicial Settlement was later on handed to
dated November 16, 2015. The same contained respondent's response complainant. It was published by Lecson Publishing and Services, Inc. in
to a complaint she filed against him and April before the Office of the City its November 5, 12, and 19, 2014 issues.
Prosecutor in Manila for Falsification of Public Document under Articles
171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code. On June 22, 2015, he was surprised that complainant filed a case for
settlement of estate before the RTC-Mandaluyong City via SP Proc. Case
In particular, paragraph 17 of respondent's counter-affidavit described her No. MC-15-9510.
as overly persistent or "atat na ataf to sell the property of her deceased
son barely a month after his death. On the other hand, in paragraph 27, Complainant was excluded from the Extrajudicial Settlement since
respondent described her as a devil wearing a devil's smile. Patricia was Patrick's legitimate daughter and, by law, excludes Patrick's
ascendants from inheriting ab intestato from Patrick's estate. Per
Respondent's Defenses Patricia's Birth Certificate, there was no impediment for her parents to
marry at the time she was born. Thus, the subsequent marriage of April
In CBD 15-4821,5 respondent essentially countered: and Patrick made Patricia a legitimated child with the same status as
legitimate. He was not informed of April's previous marriage with Neil and
it was not his duty to investigate nor inquire with the Philippine Statistics
There was no attorney-client relationship between him and complainant.
Authority regarding the matter.
He only came to know of complainant on September 10, 2014 when real
estate broker and longtime client Paz Paguio introduced them to each
other. That day, Paz and her client Myriam (complainant) appeared Complainant could not cry foul as she was on top of the documentation
before his office for documentation of the sale of a property located in all through its drafting until its publication. Complainant even gave him
Quezon City. For this purpose, complainant handed him a Deed of
one (1) box of pomelos to show her gratitude. He gave the pomelos to his In CBD 15-4821, the Commissioner held that as a lawyer, respondent
staff because he does not like pomelos. knew that complainant and her husband had the right to inherit from their
son, Patrick because Patrick had no legitimate child. Further, respondent
There was no conflict of interests because complainant was never his committed the following irregularities in the Extrajudicial Settlement:
client. At any rate, his appearance in the Mediation Proceedings was not
a violation of his oath because he merely assisted April upon the latter's First. Respondent deliberately hid the fact that Patricia was April's
request since he was the one who drafted the Extrajudicial Settlement legitimate child from her first marriage.
upon complainant's instructions. He never represented April in any of the
cases between her and complainant. Second. He made Patricia sign the Extrajudicial Settlement and made it
appear that the latter was of legal age when in truth and in fact, she was
Anent the alleged exclusion of Patrick's shares of stock in Sweetcraft then only thirteen (13) years old.
Corporation, he was never informed of such ownership. Too, AMPB
Sweetcraft Corporation was legally incorporated. It's supposed illegality Third. He made it appear in the Extrajudicial Settlement that Patrick left
was only in the mind of complainant who was on a fault-finding mission. no personal property, to the complainant's extreme prejudice. Ꮮαwρhi ৷

In CBD 16-4966,5 respondent countered, in the main: Respondent, therefore, violated Canons 1, 7, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the
CPR: he violated Canon 1 when he disregarded the applicable laws in
There was nothing wrong with describing complainant as a "devil" succession and taxation; he violated Canon 7 when he took advantage of
because at that time, while the whole family was grieving, complainant his client's trust and confidence, undermining the legal profession's
was trying to get everything she could. He called her a devil because her integrity and dignity; he violated Canon 15 when he deprived complainant
actuations were not those of a person believing in God's existence. Too, of what was due her from her son's estate and used the same documents
there was nothing wrong with the use of the word "atat na ataf because entrusted him to charge complainant with falsification of documents; he
he had difficulty finding the appropriate word in English. The word violated Canon 17 when he dumped complainant as client and openly
"persistent" was too light to describe complainant's actuations in trying to represented April against complainant; and lastly, respondent's
amass everything she could shortly after her son's death, leaving nothing erroneous declarations in the Extrajudicial Settlement constituted
to his son's immediate family. violations of Canons 18 and 19 of the CPR.

Report and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Meanwhile, in CBD 16-4966, the Commissioner held that respondent
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP — CBD) violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he described complainant
as a devil with a devil's smile, and "atat na atat."
By its Consolidated Report and Recommendation7 dated July 31, 2017,
Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay recommended that respondent be Resolutions of the IBP - Board of Governors (BOG)
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, thus:
Under its assailed Resolution8 dated October 4, 2018, the IBP - Board of
WHEREFORE, premises considered ATTY. DENNIS C. Governors affirmed with modification, viz.:
PANGAN violated his Lawyer's Oath and pertinent provisions of the Code
of Professional [Responsibility and the undersigned Commissioner CBD Case No. 15-4821
respectfully recommends that a penalty of suspension from practice of Myriam Tan-Te Seng vs.
law for a period of one (1) year at the discretion of the Board of Atty. Dennis C. Pangan
Governors be imposed with warning that repetition of similar conduct in
the future will warrant a more severe penalty. RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner to impose upon Respondent the penalty of
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED. SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
CBD Case No. 16-4966 legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
Myriam Tan-Te Seng vs. falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly nor
Atty. Dennis C. Pangan willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
Investigating Commissioner, with modification, that respondent be discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
The IBP elevated the entire records for the Court's final imprimatur since
the IBP resolutions were mere recommendatory in nature. Per The sworn duty to obey the laws of the land was reiterated in Canon 1 of
verification, no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed the CPR,thus:
by either party as of March 5, 2020.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
Threshold Issues land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.9

1. Did respondent violate the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR when As will be discussed, respondent failed to live up to his sworn duties and
he neglected complainant's interest in favor of April? responsibilities in his dealings with complainant.

2. Did respondent act in defiance of the law when he excluded Respondent was bound to protect
complainant as heir to her son's estate? complainant's interests

3. Did respondent commit dishonesty when he excluded Patrick's a. There existed a lawyer-client relationship
personal properties from the Extrajudicial Settlement he between respondent and complainant
prepared?
Respondent was bound to protect complainant's interest the moment the
4. Did respondent fail to maintain complainant's secrets when he latter sought the former's advice regarding the settlement of her
criminally charged her through a document entrusted him in deceased son's estate. To constitute professional employment, it is not
confidence? essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally
on any previous occasion. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or
5. Are respondent's description of complainant as "atat na atat" troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional
and a devil with devil's smile offensive enough to warrant capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and
respondent's disbarment? the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then
the professional employment must be regarded as established.10
Ruling
Here, a lawyer-client relationship was established when complainant
sought respondent's legal services for the settlement of her son's estate.
We resolve.
To be sure, complainant was introduced to respondent to discuss the
properties her deceased son Patrick left behind. Thereafter, they had
When respondent took the lawyer's oath, he swore to obey the laws and several meetings at respondent's law office for the preparation and
conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients, viz.: drafting of the Extrajudicial Settlement. Respondent even sent
complainant and April the list of pertinent documents he would be
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the needing. From respondent's own actions, it is crystal clear that a lawyer-
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the client relationship between him and complainant had been forged.
Respondent nevertheless denies his supposed lawyer-client relationship RULE 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
with complainant simply because there was no retainer agreement written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
between them and the fact that he did not receive a single centavo from facts.13
complainant for his services.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
We do not agree. counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client. The rule covers not only cases in which confidential
The absence of retainer agreement and non-payment of fees do not communications have been confided, but also those in which no
negate the existence of lawyer-client relationship. In Burbe v. Atty. confidence has been bestowed or will be used. The rule holds even if the
Magulta,11 the Court held that to constitute professional employment, it is inconsistency is remote, merely probable, or the lawyer has acted in good
not essential that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.14
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for
which his service had been sought. In this case, respondent abandoned complainant's cause and openly
represented April as his client during mediation conferences. Per
At any rate, respondent's denial of lawyer-client relationship between him Certificate of Appearance15 dated September 28,2015, Myriam C. Tan
and complainant was belied by his own statement in his Answer, viz.: Te Seng appeared before the Philippine Mediation Center with Atty. Rita
Linda V. Jimeno and Atty. Mary Sayeh P. Hassani while April Marie
27. Assu[m]ing arguendo by the stretch of imagination that complainant is Paguio Te Seng appeared with respondent Atty. Dennis C. Pangan.
the client of respondent, the latter's appearance in the Mediation Certainly, this is a case of a lawyer representing conflicting interests.
Proceedings is not a violation of his Oath. Respondent went to the
Mediation Proceedings because the latter asked him to do so because he We are not persuaded by respondent's defense that the two (2) lawyers
is the one who prepared the Extrajudicial Settlement at the instruction of who assisted complainant during the mediation never opposed his
complainant.12 (Emphases supplied) appearance as April's representative. The lack of opposition did not cure
respondent's violation of the prohibition on representing conflicting
b. Respondent abandoned complainant's cause interests.

in favor of April In Senior Marketing Corp. v. Bo Unas,16 the Court suspended Atty.
Aquilino P. Bolinas from the practice of law for six (6) months for violation
of Canon 15, Rules 15.01 and 15.03, and Canon 21. According to the
In view of their lawyer-client relationship, respondent was duty bound to
Court, Atty. Bolinas clearly violated the prohibition against representing
protect complainant's cause and refrain from representing interests in
conflicting interests when he handled the cases filed against complainant
conflict therewith in accordance with Canon 15, Rules 15.02 and
by its employees though he was previously complainant's retained
15.03, viz.:
counsel and had access to documents pertinent to the cases filed.
CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
Respondent disregarded the law on succession
his dealings and transactions with his client.
in excluding complainant as heir
Rule 1.02 of the CPR ordains:
x x x x
RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
RULE 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.17
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.
Respondent violated the aforecited rule when he disregarded the law on Article 997. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents
succession and excluded complainant as heir to her son's estate. or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the
Pertinently, Article 985 of the Civil Code decrees: estate, and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half.25

Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the XXXX

deceased, his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the
exclusion of collateral relatives.18 Article 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse, and
illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of
As stated, the absence of legitimate descendants entitles the direct the inheritance, and the other half shall be divided between the surviving
ascendants to inherit from the deceased's estate. Notably though, the spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall
Extrajudicial Settlement of Patrick's estate excluded complainant as heir have one-fourth of the estate, and the illegitimate children the other
despite the fact that Patrick did not have a legitimate offspring. fourth.26

As reflected in her birth record, Patricia was bom on February 24, 2001. In the first scenario, Article 997 of the Civil Code is applicable while in the
At that time, April's marriage to Neil was still subsisting. The nullity of second, Article 1000. Either way, respondent violated Rule 1.02 of the
April's marriage to Neil became final only on July 14, 2003. For lack of CPR when he excluded complainant as heir in the Extrajudicial
evidence on the ground invoked for the nullity of April's marriage to Neil, Settlement.
the Court presents two (2) scenarios:
Respondent nevertheless reasons out that no one dared inform him of
First. If the ground relied upon was either Article 3619or 5320 of the April's previous marriage to Neil; it was not his duty to investigate and
Family Code, Patricia is deemed the legitimate daughter of April and Neil make inquiries at the NSO (now PSA); and he merely relied on the
in accordance with Article 5421 of the Family Code. Patrick's information as laid down by the parties. Respondent's claim, however, is
acknowledgment of Patricia as his daughter, by itself, could not have belied by the fact that complainant incessantly insisted that she and her
diminished Patricia's status into that of an illegitimate child. For under Art. husband were heirs to Patrick's estate. Complainant made this clear from
17022 of the Family Code, it was April's then husband Neil, not Patrick, the time she first met respondent and reiterated it with persistent follow
who could have impugned Patricia's legitimacy. ups with respondent. Respondent cannot now feign ignorance thereof.

Second. If the ground relied upon was neither Article 36 nor 53 of the At any rate, records show that respondent eventually married April on
Family Code, Patricia would be considered an illegitimate child. To be November 27, 2015 at Bacolor, Pampanga. April's CENOMAR would
sure, Article 177 of the Family Code23 expressly precludes the have indicated her previous marriages and their duration. Respondent
legitimation of children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents would then have discovered that Patricia was born during the subsistence
who, at the time of the conception of the former, were disqualified by any of April's rnarriage to Neil and, hence, could not be considered as
impediment to marry each other. Thus, neither Patrick and April's Patrick's legitimated (Offspring. Yet, he did nothing to rectify the
subsequent marriage on September 18, 2005, nor his Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement and continued to deny complainant and her
Acknowledgment could have raised Patricia's status to that of a husband their share in Patrick's estate.
legitimated child. For at the time Patricia was conceived and born, there
existed a legal impediment for Patrick to marry April; April's marriage to Respondent is exonerated from the
Neil was still subsisting.24 charge for dishonesty for lack of merit

In either scenario, complainant and her husband would still have been Rule 1.01 of the CPR proscribes dishonesty and deceitful conduct, thus:
able to inherit half of Patrick's estate:
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.27
Here, complainant claims that respondent committed falsehood when he RULE 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his
declared in the Extrajudicial Settlement that the deceased left no client except:
personal properties when in truth and in fact, Patrick owned 33.65% of
Sweetcraft Corporation's outstanding capital stock at the time of his death a) when authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
per the Corporation's General Information Sheet.28 Paragraph 3 of the consequences of the disclosure;
Extrajudicial Settlement reads:
b) when required by law;
3. No personal properties are involved in this Extrajudicial Settlement.29
c) when necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
The Court, however, cannot fathom how respondent committed falsehood employees or associates or by judicial action.
and dishonesty from such declaration. For the provision could have
meant that the Extrajudicial Settlement did not cover Patrick's personal RULE 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
properties which could have been the subject of another settlement, or in information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
case of disagreement, be the subject of a separate proceeding for such same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with
purpose. What is clear is that the Extrajudicial Settlement prepared by full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.31
respondent did not include Patrick's personal properties, nothing more.
Here, respondent violated the CPR when he charged complainant with
Meanwhile, the alleged anomalous incorporation of AMPB Sweetcraft falsification using the documents complainant herself entrusted to him in
Corporation is unsubstantiated. Complainant alleges that respondent confidence. By Affidavit-Complaint32 dated August 7, 2015, he averred:
assisted April in incorporating AMPB Sweetcraft Corporation in fraud of
the other stockholders of Sweetcraft Corporation including complainant.
28. In the course of the documentation, I was misled by respondent
They allegedly transferred Patrick's share to the new corporation a week
Myriam that she is single and she can dispose of her share in the co-
before executing the Extrajudicial Settlement.
ownership on her own without the need for the signature of her husband.
To support her allegation, complainant attached AMPB Sweetcraft
29. One of the documents given by respondent and Paz Paguio to me is
Corporation's Articles of Incorporation to the complaint, nothing more.
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 13 July 2012 executed by Cambridge
This document, however, does not paint a picture of the anomalies which
Realty and Development Corp. in favour of Myriam C. Tan, single and
supposedly attended AMPB Sweetcraft's incorporation nor the alleged
Patrick Marcel T. Te Seng married to April Marie P. Te Seng (Annex "A"),
fraudulent transfer of Patrick's shares.
30. Clearly, in the said Deed of Absolute Sale (Annex "G"), respondent
Thus, respondent is exonerated from the charge of dishonesty.
committed falsification of public document by misrepresenting herself as
single when she is very much married to Oscar Te Seng.33(Emphases
Respondent criminally charged complainant supplied).
using a document entrusted to him in confidence
xxxx
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e)30 mandates the lawyer to maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve his client's secrets.
In so doing, respondent eroded the public's trust and confidence in the
This duty is reiterated in Canon 21, Rules 21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR:
legal profession. For he gave the impression that anything submitted to
the lawyer engaged to protect the client's interest may be used against
CANON 21 — A lawyer shall preserve the confidences or secrets of his him or her later on when the lawyer-client relationship shall have turned
client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. sour. As the IBP - CBD aptly held:
xxxx respondent April Marie P. Te Seng (please see her Counter-Affidavit),
right after the death of the deceased Patrick Marcel T. Te Seng and
Respondent lawyer violated his duties as a lawyer by acting against the before his cadaver could even be put inside the coffin already asked him
interest of his client and keeping her from lawfully receiving what was due about the money and other properties left by her dead son.39
her from her son's estate. When Atty. Pangan obtained information and
received document from the complainant, he was already bound to xxxx
protect her interest. Worst, respondent used the documents entrusted to
him by complainant to file a flimsy criminal case for falsification against 27. When this fact was conveyed to the complainant Myriam, she did not
her on the ground that she allegedly put her status as "single" when she show remorse but even offered a devil smile saying "malaking amount na
was still married, although separated de facto.34 yun Attorney, please convince her to accept the amount." The
complainant Myriam also sought the help of herein respondent to follow
xxxx up the check payments of the respondent April [M]arie for the amount she
spent in helping her. Right there, I saw the devil in her person because
In Palacios v. Amor a, Jr.,35 Atty. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora, Jr. was while the whole family was grieving, here is a mother who is supposed to
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years for violating the protect her family but was there to get what the whole family
Lawyers Oath, Canon 15, Rule 15.03; Canon 21, Rule 21.01 and 21.02 of has.40 (Emphases supplied)
the CPR. Among the violations he committed, Atty. Amora, Jr. accused
his former client of several violations using confidential information he Respondent's use of the words "devil," "with a devil smile," and "atat na
secured from complainant while he was the latter's counsel. Thus, Atty. atat" to describe complainant and her actuations during the meetings
Amora, Jr. was found guilty of violating Canon 21, Rules 21.01 and 21.02 held for the preparation and drafting of the Extrajudicial Settlement of her
of the CPR. son's estate fell short of his sworn duty to act with dignity and civility. The
use of these distasteful words in his counter affidavit was uncalled for, to
Respondent's descriptions of complainant in his Counter-Affidavit were say the least.
offensive
In Lim v. Mendoza,41 the Court held that respondent failed to use
Membership in the Bar imposes upon lawyer's certain obligations. temperate and respectful language in his pleading against complainant.
Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must In his eagerness to advance his client's cause, respondent imputed on
conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Any violation of these standards Rufina derogatory traits that are damaging to her reputation. He averred
exposes them to administrative liability.36 Rule 8.01 of the CPR provides: that Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" in rent which were
"DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES." There, the Court reminded
RULE 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language that lawyers are instructed to be gracious and must use such words as
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.37 may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. Our language
is rich with expressions that are emphatic but respectful, convincing but
not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
In his Counter-Affidavit38 dated November 16, 2015 before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila, I.S. No. XV-07-INV-151-05480 for
Falsification of Public Document filed by complainant, respondent Penalty
averred:
In A.C. No. 12829 (formerly CBD 15-4821), respondent is found guilty of
xxxx violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.02; Canon 15, Rules 15.02 and
15.03; and Canon 21, Rules 21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR. The Court
deems it sufficient to impose one (1) year suspension upon respondent in
17. Here we could see who is so persistent (in Tagalog "atat na ataf) to
accordance with Lint, Jr. v. Villarosa42 where the Court suspended Atty.
sell the property of the deceased barely less than a month after his death.
This confirms the character of the complainant Myriam who, according to
Nicanor V. Villarosa when he represented conflicting interests in violation Respondent must inform the Office of the Bar Confidant of the exact date
of Canons 15 and 22 of the CPR. of receipt of this Decision for the purpose of reckoning the period of his
suspension from the practice of law. After completing his suspension,
In A.C. No. 12830 (formerly CBD 16-4966), respondent is found guilty of respondent is required to submit to the Office of the Bar Confidant the
violating Rule 8.01 of the CPR. But respondent's violation is not grave Certifications from the Office of the Executive Judge of the court where
enough to merit suspension, let alone, dismissal. The Court, therefore, he principally practices his profession and from the Integrated Bar of the
deems it proper to reduce the IBP - Board of Governor's imposition of six Philippines Local Chapter of his affiliation affirming that he had ceased
(6) month suspension to admonition. and desisted from the practice of law during his suspension.

In Parks v. Misa, Jr.,43 the Court admonished Atty. Joaquin L. Misa, Within two (2) weeks from the submission of these certifications, the
Jr. to refrain from using abusive, offensive or otherwise improper Office of the Bar Confidant shall submit the same to the Court.
language in his pleadings. There, Atty. Misa executed a counter-affidavit
containing defamatory and libelous statement against complainant, even SO ORDERED.
if she was not a party to the complaint for Malicious Mischief and Less
Serious Physical Injuries filed by her father against Atty. Misa and several
others. In the counter-affidavit, Roselyn was described as a known drug
addict, a fraud, and making insinuation that her marriage was a "fixed
marriage." According to the Court, Atty. Misa is found guilty of violating
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR because the statements were pointless
and uncalled for, intended as they were to humiliate or insult Roselyn.

So must it be.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Dennis C. Pangan GUILTY of the

following:

In A.C. No. 12829 (formerly CBD 15-4821), he is GUILTY of violation of

Rule 1.02; Canon 15, Rules 15.02 and 15.03; and Canon 21, Rules 21.01
and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.

In A.C. No. 12830 (formerly CBD 16-4966), he is GUILTY of violating

Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is ADMONISHED to refrain from using abusive and offensive language in
his pleadings and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

This Decision takes effect immediately. Let copy of this Decision be

furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
the courts.