G.R. No. A.C. No. 8608 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2907), October 16, 2019
Adelfa Properties, Inc. (Now Fine Properties, Inc.), Complainant, vs. Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza, Respondent.
FACTS
Adelfa Properties, Inc., a real estate development corporation owned by Senators Manuel B. Villar, Jr. and Cynthia Villar, employed Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza as an in-house counsel for its affiliate companies starting in 2004. Complainant alleged that Atty. Mendoza consistently performed poorly in evaluations, particularly in adapting to his work environment, leading to his transfers between affiliate companies. In May 2009, after being informed of his poor performance, Atty. Mendoza allegedly threatened company officers, stating, “I will bring down the Company with me,” and claimed to possess damaging information and documents against Senator Villar. He also allegedly attempted to extort PHP 25,000,000 from a senior officer, threatening to disclose the information to Senator Panfilo Lacson if his demands were not met. After his termination on May 22, 2009, Atty. Mendoza filed an illegal dismissal case against the complainant, seeking substantial monetary claims. He subsequently gave media interviews in April 2010, publicly accusing the company of corrupt practices and Senator Villar of using influence in land disputes. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint, alleging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and multiple Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including Canons 15, 17, 18, and 21, for breach of confidentiality, gross misconduct, and undermining public confidence in the legal system.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Court held that while the complainant failed to sufficiently prove that Atty. Mendoza disclosed privileged attorney-client communications—as the alleged “irregular and illegal acts” were not shown to have been communicated in confidence for the purpose of seeking legal advice—his conduct still constituted gross misconduct. Atty. Mendoza violated Rules 13.02, 21.01, and 21.02 of Canon 21 of the CPR by allowing himself to be interviewed by the media and making public accusations against his former client, which undermined the integrity of the legal profession and public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to maintain client confidentiality is paramount and continues even after the termination of the attorney-client relationship. However, in this case, the actionable offense was his improper media engagement. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Mendoza from the practice of law for six (6) months, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would result in a more severe penalty.
