A.C. No. 6192; June 23, 2005
Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Romero, Represented by Araceli Vda. De Romero, Complainants, vs. Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, heirs of Herman Rey Romero, charged respondent Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. with willful falsehood before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The case stemmed from a civil action involving a property sold multiple times. A Compromise Agreement was executed and judicially approved in 1996, wherein the respondent’s client, V.R. Gonzales Credit Enterprises, Inc., agreed to develop the property and pay the complainants after two years. The respondent signed this agreement as counsel. When his client defaulted, the complainants moved for a writ of execution.
In opposing the motion, the respondent initially argued it was premature. Later, after protracted litigation, he raised the new defense that his client’s representative, Veronica Gonzales, had not signed the agreement and lacked authority to bind the corporation. This argument succeeded, leading the trial court to declare the Compromise Agreement unenforceable and deny the writ of execution. The complainants alleged this was a deliberate falsehood, as the respondent had actively participated in forging and submitting the agreement.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. violated his oath and ethical duties as a lawyer by asserting a factual and legal position contrary to his own prior actions and knowledge, to the detriment of the administration of justice.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court emphasized that a lawyer is first an officer of the court, with a paramount duty to assist in the administration of justice. While a lawyer must defend a client’s interests zealously, this must be done within the bounds of law and truth. The respondent’s conduct exhibited bad faith. He actively negotiated, signed, and utilized the Compromise Agreement to secure a favorable judgment and even to dismiss a related forcible entry case against his client. He cannot subsequently repudiate the very agreement he helped create by raising technical defects he was previously aware of or should have known. This flip-flopping constituted a willful falsehood and an abuse of judicial processes, undermining the finality of judgments and making a mockery of court proceedings. His actions betrayed his oath to act with fidelity to both the court and his client, prioritizing his client’s tactical advantage over truth and justice.