Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Camacho Vs Pangulayan

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    - Atty. Manuel Camacho filed a complaint against Luis Pangulayan and his law firm for negotiating compromise agreements with four of Camacho's clients without his knowledge during a pending civil case. - Pangulayan claimed the agreements were for an administrative case and not related to the civil case. However, documents showed the agreements required terminating all proceedings, including the civil case. - This was found to violate legal ethics by negotiating with represented parties without including their attorney. The court agreed Pangulayan was liable but found the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Camacho Vs Pangulayan

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    42 views2 pages
    - Atty. Manuel Camacho filed a complaint against Luis Pangulayan and his law firm for negotiating compromise agreements with four of Camacho's clients without his knowledge during a pending civil case. - Pangulayan claimed the agreements were for an administrative case and not related to the civil case. However, documents showed the agreements required terminating all proceedings, including the civil case. - This was found to violate legal ethics by negotiating with represented parties without including their attorney. The court agreed Pangulayan was liable but found the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty.

    Original Title

    5. Camacho vs Pangulayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Atty. Manuel Camacho filed a complaint against Luis Pangulayan and his law firm for negotiating compromise agreements with four of Camacho's clients without his knowledge during a pending civil case. - Pangulayan claimed the agreements were for an administrative case and not related to the civil case. However, documents showed the agreements required terminating all proceedings, including the civil case. - This was found to violate legal ethics by negotiating with represented parties without including their attorney. The court agreed Pangulayan was liable but found the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views2 pages

    Camacho Vs Pangulayan

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    - Atty. Manuel Camacho filed a complaint against Luis Pangulayan and his law firm for negotiating compromise agreements with four of Camacho's clients without his knowledge during a pending civil case. - Pangulayan claimed the agreements were for an administrative case and not related to the civil case. However, documents showed the agreements required terminating all proceedings, including the civil case. - This was found to violate legal ethics by negotiating with represented parties without including their attorney. The court agreed Pangulayan was liable but found the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MANUEL N. CAMACHO vs. LUIS MEINRADO C.

    PANGULAYAN

    AC. No. 4807, Mar 22, 2000

    VITUG, J.:

    Facts:

    Atty. Manuel Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers of Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices.
    The complainant is the counsel for some of the expelled students from the AMA Computer College
    (AMACC), the petitioners in a civil action, while respondent are the counsel for AMACC, the defendant in
    the same civil action. Complainant alleged that during the pendency of the civil action, the respondents
    procured compromise agreements with four of his clients without his knowledge. The agreements
    required his clients to waive all kinds of claims they might have against AMACC and to terminate all
    proceedings against it. Complainant averred that such an act was unbecoming of a lawyer and warrants
    administrative sanction.

    In his comment, Atty. Luis Pangulayan averred that his co-respondents had taken no part in the execution
    of the compromise agreements and that the compromise agreements were the result of the settlement of
    an administrative case against the students regarding their expulsions and had nothing to do with the
    dismissal of the aforementioned civil action.

    The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
    6 months. It was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

    Issue:

    Whether respondent violated the CPR

    Ruling: Yes.

    It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were
    formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case.
    Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the students were
    represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their
    parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was
    counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent, whether by design or because
    of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a
    duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a
    member of the Bar.

    The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the administrative aspect
    of the controversy is belied by the Manifestation[1] which, among other things, explicitly contained the
    following stipulation; viz:

    "1.......Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
    parents/guardian already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President, AMABLE R.
    AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE MANUAL FOR
    DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
    proceedings which they may have against the AMACC arising from their previous dismissal.

    "x x x......x x x......x x x

    "3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No. Q-97-30549
    will by filed them."

    The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in
    their findings; nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would appear to be somewhat too
    harsh a penalty given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent.

    You might also like