AC 12457; (April, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 12457. April 2, 2019. REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III, Complainant v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rev. Fr. Jose P. Zafra III filed a criminal case for estafa against Jojo R. Buniel and Anna Liza M. Guirnalda. Their counsel, respondent Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan, wrote a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra for concocting stories, labeling his actions a “mortal sin.” This caused Fr. Zafra embarrassment and led to a diocesan investigation, though he was eventually cleared. Fr. Zafra filed an administrative complaint, alleging the letter violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by aiming to lessen confidence in the legal system and instigating controversy.
Separately, Fr. Zafra discovered that Atty. Pagatpatan had been suspended from the practice of law for two years in 2005 in another case (A.C. No. 4562) and that this suspension order had never been lifted. Despite this, Pagatpatan continued to practice law, representing clients in various Regional Trial Court cases in Davao. Pagatpatan admitted to the unauthorized practice, citing family financial needs due to his wife’s illness, but expressed an intention to withdraw his appearances.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Pagatpatan should be held administratively liable for: (1) writing the letter to the Bishop concerning the complainant, and (2) engaging in the practice of law while under suspension.
RULING
Yes, on both counts. First, the Court found Atty. Pagatpatan guilty of simple misconduct for writing the letter. His act was not a sincere attempt to address ecclesiastical discipline but a calculated move to threaten and pressure Fr. Zafra into settling the estafa case, thereby prejudicing the honor and reputation of a party. This unethical behavior warranted a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00).
Second, and more severely, the Court disbarred Atty. Pagatpatan for his willful and continuous unauthorized practice of law. His suspension in 2005 was a final and executory order of the Supreme Court. By practicing law for over thirteen years without any order lifting the suspension, he committed gross misconduct and exhibited blatant disrespect for the Court’s authority. The practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and the Court has the duty to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession by removing a lawyer who so flagrantly disobeys its lawful orders. His personal reasons, while perhaps sympathetic, do not excuse his defiance. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for such a clear and prolonged contempt of the Court’s directive.