G.R. No. A.C. No. 2545 July 6, 1988
Leandro Ayroso, complainant, vs. Attorney Arsenio R. Reyes, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leandro Ayroso filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes, alleging that the lawyer violated his oath by instigating the filing of numerous groundless civil and criminal suits against him. The complainant enumerated nine specific cases, including charges for perjury, malicious mischief, falsification, kidnapping, and illegal detention, filed by various parties who were clients of Atty. Reyes. Ayroso pointed out that he was either acquitted or the cases were dismissed, arguing this proved the suits were baseless and that Atty. Reyes, as counsel for the opposing parties in all these cases, was the instigator.
In his defense, Atty. Reyes highlighted that he and the complainant were long-time acquaintances from the same town, and he had routinely served as counsel for Ayroso’s relatives in their protracted disputes. He contended the administrative complaint was merely retaliatory, citing several cases where Ayroso had sued his relatives and lost, including a dismissed libel charge, an unsuccessful arson case, and a civil partition case Ayroso himself dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes should be administratively disciplined for allegedly instigating the filing of groundless and frivolous cases against the complainant.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic centers on the insufficiency of evidence to prove the central allegation of instigation. The Solicitor General, to whom the case was referred for investigation, found no direct evidence substantiating the claim that Atty. Reyes induced or instigated the filing of the enumerated cases. The Court agreed, noting that the complainant’s accusation was based purely on inference drawn solely from the fact that Atty. Reyes appeared as counsel for the adverse parties. Mere representation of a client in a lawsuit does not equate to instigation of that suit; it is a lawyer’s duty to represent clients who seek legal services. Furthermore, the dismissal or acquittal in some of the cases does not, by itself, conclusively establish that the cases were utterly groundless or frivolous from their inception, as they may have been dismissed for procedural or other reasons not related to the absolute lack of merit. Without clear, convincing proof of malicious instigation beyond the lawyer’s professional representation, no administrative liability can attach. The Court thus upheld the principle that a lawyer is not accountable for a client’s decision to litigate, absent evidence of the lawyer’s unethical conduct in prompting such action.