G.R. No. A.C. No. 5148; July 1, 2003
ATTY. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Ramon P. Reyes represented Zonggi Xu in an estafa case against Chia Hsien Pan, who was represented by respondent Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. After the Manila Prosecutor filed the criminal complaint and a warrant of arrest was issued against Pan, respondent filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money and damages in Zamboanga City. In this civil suit, respondent impleaded not only Xu but also complainant Atty. Reyes and the investigating prosecutor, Pedro B. Salanga, as co-defendants. When confronted, respondent suggested he would advise his client to drop the civil case if complainant moved to dismiss the estafa case, indicating a potential settlement linking the two actions.
Respondent, in his defense, argued that the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil suit was justified. He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga committed irregularities in the preliminary investigation by filing the estafa case despite pending motions from his client. He further claimed that Atty. Reyes connived with his client in filing a baseless criminal case. Respondent asserted that these grounds for impleadment were discovered only after the civil case was instituted and that his client had insisted on including them.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. violated his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading the opposing counsel and the prosecutor in a civil case.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation, suspending him from the practice of law for two years. The legal logic centers on the duty of lawyers to maintain professional courtesy and avoid harassing tactics. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
The Court found that the civil case for collection and damages arose from a business dispute between the parties’ clients. There was no substantive legal basis to implead either the opposing counsel or the prosecutor, as they were not participants in the original business transaction. Their involvement was solely in their professional capacities regarding the separate estafa case. The respondent’s act of including them was a retaliatory measure intended to gain leverage for his client in the criminal proceedings, constituting a clear harassing tactic. His excuse that his client insisted on the inclusion is unacceptable, as a lawyer’s duty to a client does not permit the institution of groundless suits or the use of the judicial process for harassment, in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The ruling reinforces that the bitterness between clients must not erode the professionalism, dignity, and mutual respect required among members of the bar.