A.C. No. 11616, August 23, 2017
LITO V. BUENVIAJE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Lito Buenviaje filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Melchor Magdamo for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Magdamo represented the sisters of Buenviaje’s late wife, Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje, in a criminal bigamy case against him. In connection with this representation, Atty. Magdamo sent a “Notice of Death of Depositor” to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-Dagupan Branch, where Buenviaje and his late wife held a joint account. The notice contained highly derogatory statements, labeling Buenviaje as a “clever swindler” who used spurious documents to pretend to be Fe’s husband, asserted that Buenviaje was “a fugitive from justice” hiding from a criminal charge, and declared that Fe “never had a husband or child in her entire life.” Buenviaje discovered this notice in December 2007 when inquiring about the account balance.
Buenviaje alleged the statements were false, malicious, and intended to prejudice him. He denied being a swindler or fugitive, explaining his marital history and contending the bigamy complaint was merely under preliminary investigation at the time of the notice. He argued Atty. Magdamo’s language was a dirty tactic designed to intimidate the bank into freezing the joint account, thereby depriving him of access to the funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Atty. Magdamo liable and recommended a three-month suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through the language and assertions made in his Notice of Death of Depositor sent to BPI-Dagupan.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and suspended Atty. Magdamo for three months. The Court held that while a lawyer owes fidelity to a client’s cause, this duty must be discharged within the bounds of law and ethical rules. It emphasized that a lawyer’s responsibility does not justify a course of action propelled by ill motive or malicious intention against another party. The language used in the notice—specifically the terms “clever swindler” and “fugitive from justice,” alongside the claim about the spouse never having a husband—was unnecessarily offensive, disrespectful, and intemperate.
The Court ruled that such conduct violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 8 requires a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues and to avoid harassing tactics. Canon 10 mandates that a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. By employing scandalous and abusive language in a formal communication to a bank, Atty. Magdamo engaged in conduct that eroded public confidence in the legal profession. His actions exceeded the zealous representation of his clients and constituted an unethical attempt to gain leverage in a collateral matter concerning the bank account. The suspension serves as a sanction for this professional misconduct.