In legal practice, honesty and transparency are paramount. This case underscores that lawyers must be completely truthful, especially when advocating for their own interests against former clients. Misrepresenting facts, even in pursuit of attorney’s fees, constitutes a breach of professional ethics and warrants disciplinary action. This ruling serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice demands unwavering integrity from legal professionals, ensuring the courts are not misled by any artifice or falsehood.

When a Lawyer’s Pursuit of Fees Veers into Deception

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Dolores Silva Vda. de Fajardo against Atty. Rexie Efren A. Bugaring, seeking his disbarment for allegedly making untruthful statements in an attempt to collect excessive attorney’s fees. The central issue is whether Atty. Bugaring violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by misrepresenting facts to the court in his claim for fees, specifically by including properties not subject to litigation and concealing crucial settlement details. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. Bugaring, a decision that the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed.

The facts of the case reveal a complex relationship between Fajardo and Bugaring, beginning in 1989 when Bugaring assisted Fajardo and her co-heirs in disputes related to inherited properties. These disputes involved the heirs of Alfredo Silva Cruz and tenants occupying Lots 2434 and 2454 in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Bugaring, recommended by Atty. Ricardo Dantes (counsel for the Cruz family), represented Fajardo in these legal battles, including a significant case known as the “Mother Case.” Fajardo claims that Bugaring repeatedly assured her not to worry about his professional fees, stating, “Huwag na ninyo alalahanin iyon. Para ko na kayong nanay o lola.”

As the legal disputes grew more complex, branching into multiple cases, Fajardo’s co-heirs grew discontented with Bugaring’s handling of the matters, fearing it was derailing the sale of the properties. In response, Bugaring allegedly created fictitious “Contract of Services” documents, dated December 11, 1992, specifying acceptance fees, appearance fees, and an additional attorney’s fee equivalent to 25% of the value of the subject property. Despite this, Fajardo testified that Bugaring assured her the contracts were invalid and merely for show. Later, Fajardo and her co-heirs reached compromise agreements with both the tenants and the Cruz family, leading to the sale of Lot 2434 to Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation in 1994.

When Fajardo attempted to settle Bugaring’s fees with a P100,000 payment, he rejected it, later filing a case against her for P3,532,170 in unpaid attorney’s fees. Bugaring sought the attachment of Fajardo’s properties, leading to the administrative complaint for disbarment. Bugaring defended his actions by claiming a valid Contract of Services entitled him to the fees. He argued that he had successfully terminated all cases, except two that were still under litigation, and that Fajardo’s refusal to pay necessitated legal action.

The IBP’s investigation revealed that Bugaring had made several untruthful statements to the court. These included claiming 25% of the value of properties not in litigation, concealing that Lot 2454 was given as disturbance compensation, and misrepresenting the timing of the Contract of Service execution. These actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 10, which requires candor, fairness, and good faith to the courts, and Rule 10.01, which prohibits lawyers from making falsehoods or misleading the court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers must use means consistent with truth and honor and must never mislead the judge or any judicial officer. The court scrutinized Bugaring’s claims and found them dishonest, especially his assertion that the entire estate of Adela Silva was subject to litigation. The Court highlighted that only Lots 2434 and 2454 were mentioned in the original complaint for partition. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Cavite and Sampaloc lots, mentioned in the Compromise Agreement, had been sold long before the legal disputes began. In light of all the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings and recommendation.

The court underscored the importance of establishing clear fee agreements at the outset of a lawyer-client relationship to avoid disputes. While lawyers are entitled to protection against clients attempting to evade legitimate fees, this protection must not come at the expense of truth. The Court reiterated that lawyers are officers of the court, bound to assist in rendering justice, and must always be disciples of truth.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated the disbarment proceedings are distinct from civil actions for collection of fees. Referring to In Re Almacen, the Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, not purely civil or criminal, but an investigation into the conduct of its officers. Thus, the disbarment case could proceed independently of the civil action without constituting forum shopping.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Bugaring violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by making untruthful statements and misleading the court in his claim for attorney’s fees.
What did the IBP recommend?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Atty. Bugaring be suspended from the practice of law for one year due to his misconduct.
What properties were initially in dispute?	The initial disputes involved Lots 2434 and 2454 in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, which were part of the estate of the late Adela Silva.
What was the basis of Atty. Bugaring’s fee claim?	Atty. Bugaring based his fee claim on alleged “Contract of Services” documents, which specified acceptance fees, appearance fees, and a percentage of the value of the properties in litigation.
What misrepresentations did Atty. Bugaring make?	Atty. Bugaring made several misrepresentations, including claiming fees based on properties not in litigation and concealing that one lot was given as disturbance compensation.
What is the significance of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to exhibit candor, fairness, and good faith to the courts.
How does this case relate to forum shopping?	The Supreme Court clarified that the disbarment proceeding is distinct from the civil action for collection, and thus, it does not constitute forum shopping.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Bugaring liable for gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

This case highlights the critical importance of honesty and integrity in the legal profession. Lawyers must maintain the highest standards of conduct, particularly when dealing with their own interests, to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern warning against misrepresentation and deceit, reinforcing the principle that lawyers are officers of the court with a duty to assist in rendering justice fairly and truthfully.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DOLORES SILVA VDA. DE FAJARDO VS. ATTY. REXIE EFREN A. BUGARING, A.C. No. 5113, October 07, 2004