A.C. No. 5043; September 19, 2001
Abedin L. Osop, complainant, vs. Atty. V. Emmanuel C. Fontanilla, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Abedin L. Osop charged respondent Atty. V. Emmanuel C. Fontanilla with Grave Misconduct. In a civil case for injunction filed by Osop, Atty. Fontanilla, as counsel for a defendant, suggested in court that Osop write a letter of reconsideration to the defendant Chancellor, Macapado Muslim. Fontanilla represented that he could likely convince his classmate, the Chancellor, to reconsider. The trial court issued an order suggesting Osop write the letter, which he did upon his counsel’s advice and furnished to Fontanilla.
Subsequently, Atty. Fontanilla filed a Manifestation and later a Motion to Dismiss the civil case, arguing for dismissal on grounds of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and forum-shopping, precisely based on the letter of reconsideration he had solicited. Osop alleged this act was a betrayal of trust and constituted gross malpractice.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Fontanilla committed misconduct by soliciting the letter of reconsideration and then using it as a basis to seek the dismissal of the civil case.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Fontanilla is guilty of misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule, a forbidden act, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent. While his initial suggestion for an amicable settlement was not inherently improper, his subsequent actions revealed a lack of candor and good faith.
The Court found his conduct improper and willful. After actively soliciting the letter in open court under the pretense of facilitating negotiation, he immediately used it as legal ammunition against Osop to seek dismissal. His Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss omitted the crucial fact that the letter was written at his own solicitation, creating a misleading impression for the court. Furthermore, his accusations of forum-shopping were baseless, as Osop had not filed multiple actions; he merely pursued a single judicial remedy.
The act of employing a document, which he procured from the complainant under the guise of settlement, to prejudice that same complainant’s case is a clear breach of fairness and propriety expected from a lawyer. However, considering his apology in open court, the absence of proven malicious motive, lack of prior disciplinary record, and that the complainant suffered no material damage from the eventual dismissal of the case (which was due to lack of jurisdiction), the penalty of suspension or disbarment was deemed too severe. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Atty. V. Emmanuel C. Fontanilla is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.