Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PARAPHRASED

Canon 8Camacho vs. Pangulayan(328 SCRA 631, March 22, 2000)


Facts: A complaint was filed against the lawyers of Pangulayan and Associate Law
office (Atty. Pangulayan, et al.) by the hired counsel of some expelled students from the
AMA Computer College, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, for having effected and produced
with four of his clients without his knowledge, on different occasions, compromise
agreements (Re-Admission Agreements) which, in effect, obliged them to waive all
forms of claims they could have had against the primary defendant, AMACC, and to
terminate all administrative, civil and criminal proceedings that were filed against it. The
complainant affirmed that the respondents actions was untoward for any member of
legal profession which permisses suspension from the practice of law or disbarment.
The students, which were members of the Editorial Board of the school paper, were
expelled from the school under recommendation by the schools Student Disciplinary
tribunal for allowing and publishing some unacceptable articles or features. Moreover,
they were also found guilty for the usage of indecent language and unwarranted use
funds meant for the student publication. Atty. Pangulayan concedes that he only took
part in the development and consummation of the differing Re-Admission agreements
complained of and the claims that the settlements(?) had no hand with respect to civil
case but instead were entirely administrative.

Issue: WON Atty. Pagulayan acted in conformity(?) with ethical standards for
procuring said agreements.

Held: Negative, the IBP discovered that by the time Atty. Pangulayan was made aware
that the letters of apology and Re-Admission agreements were established, the
complainant was already the counsel in the civil case for the students. Nevertheless,
Atty. Pangulayan still went on ahead to negotiate with the students and their parents
without informing or contacting the matter with their lawyer. His incompetence is an
unjustifiable contravention of the canons of professional responsibility and an outright
neglect of the duty he is beholden to his colleague. His primary defense that the
agreements were solely administrative does not hold for the reason that it is indicated
the students shall cancel all administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against the
school, AMA. The IBP suggested a suspension for over 6 months however the SC
believes it to be too harsh and ruled for only a 3 month suspension.

ORIGINAL VERSION
Canon 8Camacho vs. Pangulayan(328 SCRA 631, March 22, 2000)
Facts: Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the
AMA Computer College, filed a complaint against the lawyers of Pangulayan and
Associates Law Offices (Atty. Pangulayan, et al.) for having procured and effected on
separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromiseagreements ("Re-Admission
Agreements") with four of his clients which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of
claims they might have had againstAMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all
civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that
such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
The students, members of the Editorial Board of the school paper, were expelled by the
school as recommended by the Student Disciplinary tribunal forpublishing some
objectionable features or articles. They were found guilty of using indecent language
and unauthorized use of student publication funds.Atty. Pangulayan admits that he only
participated in the formulation and execution of the various Re-Admission agreements
complained of and alleges thatthe agreements had nothing to do with the civil case but
were purely administrative.
Issue: WON Atty. Pagulayan act in accordance with ethical standards for procuring said
agreements.

Held: No, the IBP found that Atty. Pangulayan was aware that when the letters of
apology and Re-Admission agreements were formalized, the complainantwas already
the counsel for the students in the civil case. However, he still proceeded to negotiate
with the students and their parents withoutcommunicating the matter to their lawyer. His
failure is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional responsibility and an
utter disregard of theduty he owes to his colleague. His defense that the agreements
were purely administrative does not hold because the manifestation stated that the
studentsshall drop all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings against AMA. The
IBP recommended a 6-month suspension but the SC found it too harsh andruled only a
3-month suspension