p~

l\epublic of tbe llbilipptnes>

~upreme <teourt
;i$lanila

SECOND DIVISION

LITO V. BUENVIAJE, A.C. No. 11616

Complainant, [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus- PERALTA,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,* and
REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, ·
Respondent. 23a~Jiw
x----------------------------------- -----x
DECISION

PERALTA,J.

Before us is an Administrative Complaint dated December 28, 2007

filed by Lito Buenviaje 1 (Buenviaje) against respondent Atty. Melchor G.
Magdamo (Atty. Magdamo), docketed as A.C. No. 11616 for violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In the instant Complaint dated December 28, 2007, Buenviaje alleged

that he was married to the late Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje as evidenced by NSO

On leave.
rJI
]J.ollo, pp. 2-6.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

issued Marriage Contract Register No. 87-13503-A. 2 Fe died on September

17, 2007.

Meanwhile, Atty. Magdamo was the counsel of Fe's sisters, Lydia and
Florenia Gonzalo, who filed a criminal case for bigamy against Buenviaje.
They claimed that Buenviaje was married to a certain Amalia Ventura in
1978, thus, making him guilty of bigamy.

In an attempt to protect the rights and interests of his clients in

securing the monies of their sibling, deceased Fe Gonzalo, Atty. Magdamo
sent a Notice of Death of Depositor3 dated October 11, 2007 to the Bank of
the Philippine Islands (BPJ)-Dagupan Branch where Buenviaje and Fe
appeared to have a joint account. The pertinent portion of said Notice reads
as follows:

" xx xx

FE SOLIS GONZALO was formerly an Overseas Filipina Worker (OFW)

Nurse in Switzerland whose lifetime savings is now in an account in BPI-
Dagupan. She came back to the Philippines to spend the last days of her
life with her famiiy in San Fabian, Pangasinan. Unfortunately, while she
was terminally ill and while residing in Manila so as to be near Saint
Luke's Hospital, a clever swindler by the name of LITO BUENVIAJE
made it appear on spurious documents that he is the husband of Fe
Gonzalo when in truth and in fact LITO BUENVIAJE is married to
AMALIA VALERA.

xx xx

Moreover, ever since 24 August 2007, LITO V. BUENVIAJE has been a

fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in
People of the Philippines versus Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case
number 7H-103365, pending in the City of Manila.

xx xx

Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life. x x x" (Emphasis

ours)

Aggrieved, Buenviaje filed the instant administrative complaint

against Atty. Magdamo for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Buenviaje averred
that in Atty. Magdamo's Notice of Death of Depositor dated October 11,
2007 sent to the BPI- Dagupan Branch, he untruthfully and maliciously
quoted the following statements: ( 1) "a clever swindler by the name of Lita
Buenviaje made it appear on spurious document that he is the husband of

2
Id. at 122.
Id at 12.
tY
Decision 3 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

Fe Gonzalo when in truth and in fact Lita Buenviaje is married to Amalia

Valera", (2) "since August 24, 2007, Lita V. Buenviaje has been a fugitive
from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People of the
Philippines versus Lita Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365
pending in the City of Manila", and (3) "Fe never had a husband or child in
her entire life" to his prejudice.

Buenviaje alleged that he discovered the Notice's existence sometime

in December 2007 when he inquired about the remaining balance of his joint
account with Fe. He lamented that he was shocked upon reading the letter
and felt humiliated at the words written against him as the bank manager and
the other bank personnel might have really thought that he was a swindler
and a fugitive fromjustice. 4

Buenviaje denied Atty. Magdamo's allegation that Fe was never

married as they were in fact married in a public civil rites in the presence of
many relatives of Fe. As to his alleged marriage with a certain Amalia
Valera, Buenviaje admitted that he had extramarital relationship with her
and that they had two (2) sons. When they separated and he subsequently
worked overseas, it did not stop him from fulfilling his responsibilities as a
father to his sons. He was then advised to remit money to Amalia but he was
told that he needed a marriage contract to be able to do so, thus, he asked
someone to make a marriage contract for remittance purposes and that he
was told that there would be no record of it. Buenviaje claimed that at that
time, he really believed that no valid marriage took place between him and
Amalia and that he was single upto the time he married Fe.

Buenviaje lamented that Atty. Magdamo employed dirty and

dishonest means and tactics to ensure that BPI will prevent him from
withdrawing money from the joint account that he has with his late wife. He
averred that in referring to him as a "swindler", Atty. Magdamo succeeded
in intimidating BPI-Dagupan into extrajudicially "freezing" the joint account
and in not transacting with him.

Buenviaje also pointed out that Atty. Magdamo, in referring to him as

a fugitive from justice, in effect, made BPI-Dagupan believe that a criminal
complaint was already pending against him when in truth and in fact, the
August 24, 2007 complaint for bigamy filed by Lydia and Florenia was still
pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila at the time that
they wrote and served the Notice to BPI-Dagupan.

Buenviaje further added that Atty. Magdamo even made threats to

him as evidenced by his text messages to him, to wit: "Sometime in td
Id. at 111-120. ?/I
Decision 4 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

morning of 1 October 2007, I sent text messages to Lita's last known

Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) number (+639062097612) requesting him
to stop his merciless plunder and to voluntarily surrender _to the rule of
law. "

Finally, Buenviaje questioned Atty. Magdamo's fitness to continue in

the practice of law as he has displayed lack of ability to distinguish a
fugitive from justice and a respondent in a criminal investigation; employed
of dirty and unprofessional tactics of calling him a "swindler"; and by
referring to his marriage contract with his wife as "spurious document". He,
thus, prayed that considering Atty. Magdamo's actuations, he should be
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

On January 9, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-

CBD) directed Atty. Magdamo to submit his answer on the complaint
against him. 5

In its Report and Recommendation6 dated October 23, 2013, the IBP-
CBD recommended that Atty. Magdamo be reprimanded for his unethical
actuations.

However, the IBP-Board of Governors, in a Notice of Resolution No.

XXI-2014-717 dated October 10, 2014, resolved to adopt and approve with
modification the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead
suspend Atty. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months. 7

Aggrieved, Atty. Magdamo moved for reconsideration. However, in

Resolution No. XXII-2016-326 8 dated May 28, 2016, the IBP-Board of
Governors resolved to deny Atty. Magdamo's motion for reconsideration and
affirm the latter's suspension.

We concur with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of

Governors.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards
exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
(11
Id. at 26.
6 Id at 138-141.
Id. at 137.
Id. at 157.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and

candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against the opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01. - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

In the instant case, Atty. Magdamo's actuations do not measure up to

this Canon. The records show that he referred to Buenviaje as a "swindler".
He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that
Buenviaje is committing swindling activities. Even if he was suspicious of
Buenviaje, he should have refrained from making such malicious reference
or name-calling for he should know as a lawyer that the mere filing of a
complaint against a person does not guarantee a finding of guilt, and that an
accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Here, other than the
criminal complaint for bigamy which Fe's siblings filed before the
prosecutor's office, there were no other cases decided against Buenviaje.

Atty. Magdamo's malicious imputation against Buenviaje is further

aggravated by the fact that said imputation was made in a forum which is
not a party to the legal dispute between Fe's siblings and Buenviaje. He
could have just informed BPI-Dagupan of the death of its client and that
there is a pending litigation regarding their client's estate, and he did not
have to resort to name-calling and make unnecessary commentaries in order
to support his cause. Undoubtedly, his malicious imputation against
Buenviaje is unfair as the latter was unnecessarily exposed to humiliation
and shame even as there was no actual case yet to be filed in the courts.

Moreover, Atty. Magdamo is likewise out of line when he made

inference to the marriage documents of Buenviaje and Fe as "spurious" as
well as his conclusion that "Fe never had a husband or child in her entire
life". He should know better that without the courts' pronouncement to this
effect, he is in no position to draw conclusions and pass judgment as to the
existence, and validir; or nullity of the marriage of Buenviaje and Fe. That
is not his job to do. While his statements in the Notice given to BPI-
Dagupan might be prompted by a good cause, it were nevertheless careless,
premature and without basis. At the very least, Atty. Magdamo's actuations
are blatant violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing cow1sel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved. (Emphasis ours) ~
Decision 6 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

Equally incredulous is Atty. Magdamo's statement in the Notice that

"Lito V Buenviaje has been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding
from the criminal charge in People vs. Lita Buen~iaje y Visayana, case
number 7H-103365, pending in the City ofManila". Upon review, it appears
that case number 7H-103365 is the same bigamy case which Fe's siblings
filed against Buenviaje before the Prosecutor's Office of Manila. At the time
Atty. Magdamo made the subjects statement in the Notice to BPI-Dagupan,
he knew that there was no final resolution yet from the prosecutor's office,
no case has yet to be filed in the courts, there was no warrant of arrest
against Buenviaje, and more importantly, there was no evidence that
Buenviaje had any intent to flee prosecution as he even filed the instant case
and participated in the proceedings hereto. A mere charge or allegation of
wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
There must always be sufficient evidence to support the charge. 9 As to why
Atty. Magdamo made such malicious statements is beyond this Court's
comprehension.

We had an occasion to say that the use of disrespectful, intemperate,

manifestly baseless, and malicious statements by an attorney in his pleadings
or motions is a violation of the lawyer's oath and a transgression of the
canons of professional ethics. 10 The Court has constantly reminded lawyers
to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of
our legal system. 11 Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity
of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Magdamo
ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down
the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. 12

In this case, Atty. Magdamo's statements against Buenviaje were not

only improper but it also undoubtedly tended to mislead BPI-Dagupan into
thinking that the latter is a swindler and a fugitive as it was made without
hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The Court
cannot condone this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

As this Court emphasized in Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28

April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 & 145822: 13

9
Spouses Boyboy v. Yabut, Jr., 449 Phil. 664, 668 (2003).
10
Baja v. Judge Macandog, 242 Phil. 123, 132 (1988).
11
Atty. Barandon, Jr. v. Atty. Ferrer, Sr., 630 Phil. 524, 531 (2010).
12
Id at 532.
13
Law F;rm of Ch<Nez M;rondo A"oche v. Lozoro, A.C. No. 7045, Septembec 5, 2 0 p
Decision 7 A.C. No. 11616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in the hopes of
strengthening their cause in a motion for inhibition, make grave and
unfounded accusations of unethical conduct or even wrongdoing against other
members of the legal profession. It is the duty of members of the Bar to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to
the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justness
of the cause with which they are charged.
(emphasis ours)

Finally, it must be emphasized anew that, in support of the cause of

their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense
within the authority of the law. However, a client's cause does not permit an
attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. 14 The lawyer's duty to
its cliepts must never be at the expense of truth and justice. As explained in
Choa v. Chiongson: 15

While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full
devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a
candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his client's
case with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and legal
processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as it
appears to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatablt: under the law. He must always remind himself of the
oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give
aid nor consent to the same; and that he will conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients. Needless to state, the
lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth
and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the bounds of
reason and common sense. A lawyers responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action
propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.

Based on the foregoing, We cannot countenance Atty. Magdamo's use

of offensive and disrespectful language in his Notice addressed to BPI-
Dagupan. He clearly violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for his actions erode the public's perception of the legal
profession. We, thus, sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
Board of Governors.

/
14
<;ruz v. Judge Alifzo-Hormachuelos, 470 Phil. 435, 445 (2004).
15
329 Phil. 270, 275-276 (1996).
 .... ~

Decision 8 A.C. No. 11616

[Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141]

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the October 10, 2014 and

May 28, 2016 Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors in CBD Case No. 08-2141 and ORDERS the suspension of
Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Magdamo's personal

record as an attorney with the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy of the
same be served to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

Associaie Justice

WE CONCUR:

a;c:'(~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

1& W
ESTELA Nf.)iERLAS-BERNABE
On leave
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~
u
ANDRE REYES, JR.
Asso . e Justice