G.R. No. 4807 THIRD DIVISION A.C. No. 4807; March 22, 2000
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, counsel for expelled AMA Computer College students in a civil case for injunction and damages, charged the respondent lawyers with violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics. The complaint alleged that respondents, acting as counsel for AMACC, directly negotiated and secured “Re-Admission Agreements” with four of his client-students without his knowledge. These agreements required the students to waive all claims against AMACC and to terminate all related proceedings.
Respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, in his comment, asserted his co-respondents had no involvement in the agreements and were no longer with the firm when these were executed. He claimed the agreements solely settled the administrative aspect of the students’ expulsion for publishing objectionable articles. However, a Manifestation filed by the firm in the pending civil case explicitly stated the executing students had agreed “to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings” against AMACC, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan violated the professional ethical rule against communicating directly with a party represented by counsel.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9. The Supreme Court upheld the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ finding of liability but modified the penalty. The legal logic is anchored on the duty of fairness and respect owed to a fellow lawyer and the protection of a client’s right to counsel. Canon 9 explicitly prohibits a lawyer from communicating on the subject of controversy with a party known to be represented by counsel, requiring dealings to only be through that counsel.
The Court found that Pangulayan had full knowledge complainant was the counsel of record in the civil case when the Re-Admission Agreements were negotiated and executed directly with the students and their parents. His failure to communicate with complainant regarding these negotiations, whether by design or oversight, constituted an inexcusable ethical breach. His defense that the agreements pertained only to the administrative case was contradicted by the firm’s own Manifestation, which linked the agreements directly to the termination of the civil case. This direct dealing undermined the attorney-client relationship and the legal process. Consequently, Atty. Pangulayan was suspended from the practice of law for three months. The case against the other respondents was dismissed for lack of evidence of their participation.