G.R. No. A.C. No. 12829, September 16, 2020
Myriam Tan-Te Seng, Complainant, v. Atty. Dennis C. Pangan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Myriam Tan-Te Seng engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Dennis C. Pangan for the extrajudicial settlement of her deceased son Patrick’s estate. During the engagement, Atty. Pangan advised that the share of Patrick’s wife, April, and her daughter, Patricia, would be minimal. Complainant later discovered that Atty. Pangan’s drafted settlement excluded her as a legal heir, failed to disclose that Patricia was the illegitimate child of April’s first husband (thus not Patrick’s heir), and omitted Patrick’s corporate assets. Subsequently, Atty. Pangan filed a criminal complaint against complainant using a document she had confidentially provided him. He also began representing April in related cases and eventually married her.
In a separate but consolidated complaint, complainant charged Atty. Pangan with using abusive and offensive language against her in a counter-affidavit, describing her as overly persistent (“atat na atat”) and “a devil wearing a devil’s smile.”

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Dennis C. Pangan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Pangan is guilty of gross misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for two years. The Court found multiple violations. First, he breached the duty of confidentiality under Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by using a document obtained during his prior engagement with complainant to file a criminal case against her. His defense of no formal attorney-client relationship was rejected, as a lawyer-client relationship arises from seeking and receiving legal advice, which undisputedly occurred.
Second, he violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the CPR by representing conflicting interests. After being privy to complainant’s confidences regarding the estate, he later represented the adverse party, April, in litigation against complainant, and eventually married April, further cementing his adverse interest. This created an impermissible conflict of interest, prejudicing his former client.
Third, he violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the CPR by using intemperate, abusive, and offensive language in his pleadings. Describing a party in a legal proceeding with derogatory and insulting terms is unbefitting of a lawyer, who must conduct himself with courtesy and fairness. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession is paramount, and such language undermines public respect for the law. The totality of his actions constituted gross misconduct warranting suspension.