G.R. No. A.C. No. 9090 August 31, 2016
Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr., Complainant vs. Attys. John G. Reyes, Roque Bello and Carmentcita A. Tous-Gonzaga, Respondents

FACTS

The case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr. against Atty. John G. Reyes, primarily based on two incidents. The first involved an election protest case where Reyes entered his appearance for Mayor Rosito Velarde before the COMELEC. Complainant alleged that the protest’s original counsel for the opposing party, Atty. Roque Bello, was the long-time lawyer of the Fuentebella political family. After the parties switched political allegiances, Mayor Velarde became an ally of the Fuentebellas. Complainant contended that Atty. Bello, who had initially represented the opposing party, could not formally defend Mayor Velarde due to this prior representation, and thus clandestinely passed the case to respondent Reyes, creating a conflict of interest.
The second incident pertained to a petition to declare certain individuals as nuisance candidates. Respondent Reyes filed a Verified Answer on behalf of one Marita Montefalcon Cruz-Gulles. During the COMELEC hearing, Marita testified that she never knew respondent, never solicited his services, did not supply the allegations in the Answer, and that the signature on the verification was not hers, as she was in Bicol, not Quezon City, on the date it was purportedly signed. Complainant further alleged that respondent admitted to other lawyers that Atty. Bello had merely given him the Answer already signed and notarized.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. John G. Reyes should be held administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, but the penalty is modified from suspension to reprimand. The Court found respondent administratively liable, though it reconsidered the initial finding of “negligence of contumacious proportions” and the one-year suspension. Regarding the first incident, the evidence was insufficient to prove a clear violation of conflict of interest rules (Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility). The Court noted the lack of concrete proof that respondent knowingly represented conflicting interests, as the connection between the parties and the alleged clandestine partnership was not convincingly established.
However, for the second incident, respondent was found guilty of negligence and failure to exercise due diligence. By filing a pleading containing a verification which the purported client later disowned, respondent failed in his duty to ensure the truthfulness of the allegations and the authenticity of the signature. A lawyer must not be a mere conduit for a prepared pleading without verifying its contents and the client’s consent. This conduct fell short of the standard of prudence required of a member of the Bar. In mitigation, the Court considered respondent’s candor in admitting his negligence, his accommodation of a fellow lawyer’s request without proper verification, and the fact that this was his first offense. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to a reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.