G.R. No. A.C. No. 1571, September 23, 1999
Paraluman B. Afurong, complainant, vs. Atty. Angel G. Aquino, respondent.

FACTS

On December 22, 1975, Paraluman B. Afurong filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Angel G. Aquino. The complaint arose from an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 231552) filed by Afurong against Victorino Flores, which was decided in Afurong’s favor. After a writ of execution was issued, Flores sought assistance from the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), where Atty. Aquino was then employed. Atty. Aquino filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment (Civil Case No. 97265), which was dismissed for being filed out of time. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Civil Case No. 97976) with the Court of First Instance of Manila. A pre-trial was set for December 12, 1975. By this time, Atty. Aquino had been separated from CLAO since October 1, 1975. Nevertheless, on December 11, 1975, he filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement, signing as counsel for Flores and using CLAO’s address. In the motion, he stated he could not attend the pre-trial because he had to attend a hearing for a Habeas Corpus case (Special Proceedings No. D-00326) at the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the same date and time. A certification from that court later showed no hearing was scheduled for that case on December 12, 1975, as it had already been terminated. Atty. Aquino, in his Answer, admitted he was no longer with CLAO but filed the motion to postpone while awaiting reinstatement. He also admitted he included the statement about the other hearing “to give more ‘force'” to his motion. The Court of First Instance had already found him guilty of contempt for the false allegation in the motion.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Angel G. Aquino should be held administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Angel G. Aquino is guilty of malpractice. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Atty. Aquino violated his duties as an attorney under the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. First, he filed a frivolous petition for certiorari that served no purpose other than to delay the execution of a final and valid judgment. Second, he committed falsehood by stating in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend another hearing, which he admitted was done to give the motion more force, thereby misleading the court. Third, he misrepresented himself as still being connected with the CLAO by using its address after his separation, deceiving the court about his capacity. These acts constitute conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The Court suspended Atty. Angel G. Aquino from the practice of law for six (6) months.