Binay-An V Addog

FRANCISCO BINAY-AN,
vs.
ATANACIO ADDOG
A.C No. 10449, 28 July 2014
FACTS
The complainants are heirs of Barot Binay-an and plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 005-
CAR-07 for Annulment of Documents filed with the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), La Trinidad, Benguet, against the defendants Angeline
Damaso (Damaso) and the Cordillera Small Business Assistance Center, Inc. The
complainants are represented in said case by Atty. Jerome W. Selmo (Atty. Selmo),
while Atty. Atanacio D. Addog (respondent) represented the defendants.
According to the complainants, on February 8, 2008, Damaso, who is the

constituted representative of the heirs of Barot Binay-an, called for a meeting in
Mandarin Restaurant. Paul Palos (Paul) and Bienvenido Palos (Bienvenido ), who are
also heirs of Barot Binay-an and their co-plaintiffs in said Civil Case , and the
respondent were present in the meeting.
During the meeting, Damaso and the respondent managed to convince Paul and
Bienvenido to execute separate Affidavits of Desistance, which were later notarized by
the respondent. The respondent subsequently submitted the Affidavits of Desistance
to the NCIP, which the latter’s Hearing Officer denied. The NCIP Hearing Officer also
cautioned the respondent on the ethical consideration in having the affidavits
submitted. The respondent later withdrew his representation for the defendants.
Thus, the complaint for misconduct against the respondent, which was filed with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In his answer, while admitting that he was present during the meeting in
Mandarin Restaurant and notarized the affidavits of desistance, the respondent
denied the complainants' charges and stated that: Paul and Bienvenido' s affidavits of
desistance were freely executed; he was not "lawyering" for Paul and Bienvenido; and
he submitted the affidavits to the NCIP in behalf of his clients and not in
representation of the complainants.
The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve, with modification,
the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that: finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, and taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed,
Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months with Warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the
IBP Board of Governors.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice and grave misconduct.
RULING
The Investigating Commissioner found merit in the complaint against the
respondent and made the following findings:
Respondent, despite knowing that the Complainants Palos were not represented by
a counsel during that meeting they had with defendant Angeline Damaso,
communicated with the Palos and in fact indications are ripe that it was he who
convinced them to execute their affidavits of desistance in exchange for monetary
consideration. This presumption is strongly supported by the fact that the affidavits
were prepared and notarized by him during the said meeting. Significantly, he did not
take it upon himself to inform Atty. Jerome W. Selmo about the act of his clients.
He too failed to advise the Palos to first consult their counsel about it. In fact he
showed that he needed the affidavits badly as in fact he went on to present the
same to the NCIP Hearing Officer;to prove that the Palos had clearly wanted to
withdraw their complaint against the defendants.
The respondent even admitted that he was the one who prepared and notarized
the joint affidavit of desistance signed by Paul, Isabela Daniel and Romana Palos
(Romana). As regards the affidavit of Bienvenido, the respondent denied drafting the
same; nevertheless, he admitted that he notarized it in his office.
Canon 8, 10 Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: A lawyer

shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
In this case, the respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were represented by
counsel, Atty. Selmo. His act of preparing the affidavit of desistance, even assuming
that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul, Isabela Daniel and Romana which he
drafted and notarized was true, nonetheless encroached upon the legal functions of
Atty. Selmo.
It was unscrupulous of the respondent to compel some of the complainants in Civil
Case No. 005-CAR-07 to execute the affidavit of desistance sans the knowledge and
agreement of Atty. Selmo. In this regard, the respondent should have been mindful of
the canon dictating that:
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with
a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to
mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise
him as to the law.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby imposed the penalty of

SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, effective
immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution, with WARNING that commission of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
THANK YOU!

Binay-An V Addog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Binay-An V Addog

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Binay-An V Addog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRANCISCO BINAY-AN,

According to the complainants, on February 8, 2008, Damaso, who is the

Canon 8, 10 Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: A lawyer

WHEREFORE, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby imposed the penalty of

You might also like