G.R. No. A.C. No. 9868; April 22, 2015
ATTY. ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. E. HANS A. SANTOS and ATTY. AGNES H. MARANAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Alfredo L. Villamor, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint against respondents Attys. E. Hans A. Santos and Agnes H. Maranan for allegedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 70251 filed by the respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The complainant alleged that the respondents used a deceptive ploy to avoid paying the proper docket fees by disguising what was actually a complaint for damages (amounting to ₱68,000,000.00) as an action for specific performance and injunction (where the amount is incapable of pecuniary estimation). The complainant claimed the respondents deliberately omitted specifying the amount of damages in the prayer of the complaint, a practice declared grossly unethical in the case of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals. The respondents denied the allegations, asserting that at the time of filing, twelve out of fifteen checks were not yet due, making the action truly one for specific performance and injunction, not for a sum of money. They also noted the Manchester doctrine had been modified. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found no violation, noting the prayer clearly referenced the paragraph detailing the checks and specified ₱9.5 million for checks already due, and the Clerk of Court had not reassessed the fees. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and denied the complainant’s motion for reconsideration. The complainant then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents’ omission to specify the amount of damages in the prayer of the complaint constitutes an unethical practice in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the IBP resolutions, dismissing the disbarment complaint for lack of merit. The Court held that the respondents did not commit any unethical violation. The test in disbarment is whether the lawyer’s conduct shows a want of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, with the burden of proof on the complainant. The Court found no “deceitful conduct” under Canon 1, Rule 1.01, or violation of Canon 10 rules regarding candor to the court. Key reasons were: (1) the prayer in the complaint contained a clear reference to the paragraph detailing the checks and specified ₱9.5 million for due checks; (2) the RTC Clerk of Court never reassessed or required additional filing fees, indicating no mistake in assessment; (3) an examination of the complaint showed it was genuinely an action for specific performance and injunction, not a sum of money case; and (4) even assuming a technical non-compliance with the Manchester doctrine, there was no clear proof of intent to defraud the court or malicious disguise of the action. The allegation was based on speculation, insufficient to justify disbarment. The presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyers stands in the absence of proof of misconduct, dishonesty, or misuse of procedure.