CAMACHO VS PAGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

A.C. 4807
MARCH 22, 2000

PRINCIPLE:
CANON 9: Lawyer should not communicate upon subject of controversy with a
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. Lawyer must
avoid everything that may tend to mislead party not represented by counsel and
should not advise him as to law.

FACTS:
9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published
objectionable features or articles in the school paper.
Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549.
CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case. While the
civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission Agreements were
separately executed by the expelled students without the knowledge of CAMACHO.
CAMACHO led a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES Law firm (lawyers of AMA)because without his knowledge they procured
and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-
admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to waive all
kinds of claims they may have with AMA.
CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension.
PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the
sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case.

ISSUE:
W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULDBE SUSPENDED/DISBARRED?

HELD:
YES.
It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the
expelled AMA students.
PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded
to negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least
communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO.
This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight, is
an excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a
duty owing to a colleague.
The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case
was belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to
terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against
AMA arising from their previous dismissal”. Hence, PANGULAYAN should be
suspended for 3 months.