While lawyers are required to prepare adequately and give proper attention to their legal work, mistakes cannot be completely avoided. But not all their mistakes warrant the imposition of disciplinary penalty. This is illustrated in this case of Atty. N.
Atty. N is the legal counsel of an intellectual property consultancy firm incorporated in the Philippines (ASSI) which is engaged in investigating and prosecuting violations of intellectual property rights of its clients. Among these clients are the owners of Gucci and Louis Vuitton (LV).
On February 6, 2006, by virtue of a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) obtained by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) upon complaint of Atty. N, thousands of counterfeit Gucci and LV items were seized from the residence of a Chinese businessman (DT). Being in a quandary on how he could get back the items seized, DT requested a friend, (DU) who had contacts with the NBI, to arrange a meeting with Atty. N through the NBI Chief of Intellectual Property Division, Atty. Y.
Hence Atty. Y called Atty. N informing the latter that DU is requesting for a meeting because DT wanted to propose a settlement regarding the seized items. After conferring with the representatives of Gucci and LV, Atty. N agreed to meet DT and DU provided Atty. Y would sit as observer.
The meeting was thus held on February 14, 2006 at the coffee shop of a hotel. When Atty. N arrived, he was introduced by Atty. Y to his companion, Atty. S, and to DU. Another man was also seated in their table but it was DU who did all the talking, so Atty. N did not recall his name although it later on turned out that he was DT.
DU proceeded to ask Atty. N about Gucci and LVs proposals regarding payment of damages and the amount thereof but he said that they should be the ones to make the proposals as he was only authorized to receive such proposals although based on previous settlements, the damages would range from P500,000 to P1 million. Atty. N also informed DU that the return of the seized items were non-negotiable. Hence the settlement talks collapsed.
Thereafter Atty. N filed two complaints before the Department of Justice (DOJ) upon instructions of his clients seeking for civil damages “after trial on the merits and for such other equitable and just reliefs”. To protect the interest of his clients, Atty. N also filed a motion before the RTC for inclusion of DT’s name in the hold departure order list.
In turn DT filed a complaint against Atty. N before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that on February 14, 2006, Atty. N requested a meeting during which he demanded P500,000 from him in exchange for not filing criminal case against him, in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Conduct. DT also claimed that when he rejected Atty. N’s proposal, the latter filed two complaints for damages with the DOJ and a motion before the RTC to include him in the hold departure order list just to harass him because Atty. N knows fully that the DOJ has no jurisdiction over civil actions for damages and that no criminal case has yet been filed against him in the RTC; all of which constitute gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of the law, in violation of Rule 10.3 of said Code.
After investigation, the IBP found that Atty. N’s action of filing two complaints before the DOJ seeking for damages and the application for hold departure order are erroneous and demonstrate Atty. N’s gross ignorance of the law as well as illustrate his intention to harass complainant. But it found no sufficient evidence to prove as to which of the parties is telling the truth regarding the alleged extortion. So it recommended that Atty. N be suspended for one year. Was the IBP correct?
No. No extortion on the part of Atty. N took place. DT has more reason to seek the help of Atty. N and thus initiate the meeting because he wanted the seized items back. It is highly inconceivable for Atty. N who met DT for the first time, to immediately demand money from DT, more so in the presence of the NBI official which DT did not deny. Also it is hard to believe that Atty. N as counsel of ASSI, could unilaterally decide to desist from filing criminal cases.
The DOJ complaints were not intentionally filed to harass DT as there was no reason for Atty. N to do so considering that the search warrants were successfully implemented and the items seized. Atty. N filed the same as the next most logical step to protect the interest of his client. Even assuming that the cases for civil damages were erroneously filed with the DOJ, the same does not merit Atty. N’s suspension for one year. If at all it was an error of judgment sans bad faith. An Atty.-at-Law is not expected to know all the laws. For an honest mistake or error, an attorney is not liable (Wen Ming W Chen vs. Pichay, A.C. 7910, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA, 336).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net