AC 5908; (October, 2004) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5908; October 25, 2004
Antonio B. Ramos and Ma. Regina Paz R. De Dios, complainants, vs. Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna, respondent.
FACTS
The complainants charged respondent Atty. Pallugna with gross misconduct. The respondent was counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case concerning the ownership of Vineyard Piano Bar and Restaurant. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order and a subsequent writ of preliminary temporary restraining order (TRO), directing the plaintiff to cease management acts and not to prevent the defendant from entering for accounting, effective upon the posting of a bond. After the bond was posted and the RTC’s TRO was enforced, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to quash the RTC’s orders.
The CA issued a resolution directing the RTC judge to desist from implementing his orders. The respondent then wrote to the local police, requesting assistance to implement what he termed a “TRO” from the CA. Armed police subsequently assisted in restoring his client’s possession of the business premises. The complainants alleged this implementation was forceful and deceptive, as the CA’s order was directed only at the RTC judge, not at the parties, and the underlying RTC orders had already been fully executed.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through his actions in implementing the Court of Appeals resolution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the CA’s resolution was a restraining order directed solely at the public respondent, Judge Demecillo, ordering him to resist implementing his own earlier orders. It was not a TRO addressed to or enforceable against the private parties. The RTC’s orders had already been implemented, rendering the main relief sought in the CA petition moot. By misrepresenting the nature and directive of the CA’s order to the police and procuring its forceful execution against the complainants, the respondent acted in bad faith.
The legal logic centers on the respondent’s duty of candor and fairness under Canon 10, Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not mislead the court or abuse its processes. His actions constituted an abuse of the judicial process. He sought appellate relief against orders that were already fait accompli and then mischaracterized the resulting appellate directive to achieve an extra-legal advantage. This conduct undermined the integrity of the legal profession and displayed a lack of the honesty required of an officer of the court. For this gross misconduct, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for three months.