AM 1943; (July, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1943 July 17, 1981
CATALINO T. SAPADEN, complainant, vs. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, respondent.
FACTS
Catalino T. Sapaden filed a verified complaint for disbarment against lawyer Federico S. Tolentino, charging him with malicious prosecution and violation of his attorney’s oath. The complaint stemmed from Tolentino’s legal assistance to his client, Jose Cancio, Jr., in filing an estafa case against Sapaden in the Guagua, Pampanga municipal court on October 8, 1976. The criminal complaint alleged that Sapaden misappropriated the proceeds from the sale of 265 bags of cement entrusted to him by Cancio for sale on commission.
Following a preliminary examination, the municipal court found probable cause, issued a warrant for Sapaden’s arrest, and set bail at two thousand pesos. Sapaden was subsequently arrested at his workplace in Makati on November 10, 1976, detained in San Fernando, Pampanga for two days, and then released on bail. The estafa case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, where it remained pending trial at the time of this administrative proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Federico S. Tolentino committed gross misconduct warranting disbarment by assisting his client in filing a supposedly fabricated estafa charge against the complainant.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment. The legal logic centers on the lawyer’s duty to his client and the absence of proof of malicious intent. A lawyer has a professional obligation to represent his client’s interests zealously within the bounds of the law. Tolentino’s act of assisting in the filing of the estafa complaint was a regular performance of this duty. The claim of malicious prosecution or that the charge was fabricated was not substantiated by evidence.
Crucially, the municipal court, after conducting a preliminary examination, determined the existence of a prima facie case against Sapaden, finding reasonable ground to believe estafa was committed. This judicial finding of probable cause negates the allegation that the filing was baseless or malicious. Furthermore, the estafa case remained pending and Sapaden had not been exonerated, indicating the complaint had legal footing. Therefore, absent clear proof of bad faith, which was not presented, Tolentino’s actions constituted proper professional conduct and not a ground for disciplinary action.