In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of attorney accountability and adherence to legal ethics. The Court found Atty. Walfredo C. Bayhon guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the stringent standards expected of legal professionals, particularly concerning honesty, transparency, and compliance with court directives. The Court suspended Atty. Bayhon from the practice of law for six months, highlighting the serious consequences of misleading the court and obstructing the administration of justice.

Rental Deposits and Missing Motions: How Truth Prevailed in the Case of the Errant Attorney

The case arose from a complaint filed by Elpidio Sy against Edgar Esponilla and Atty. Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia concerning irregularities in the withdrawal of rental deposits in Civil Case No. 90-55003. Central to the controversy was an Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits (Ex-Parte Motion) filed by Atty. Walfredo Bayhon on behalf of his clients. The motion led to the withdrawal of P256,000.00, based on an order issued by the late Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag. However, the complainant, Elpidio Sy, alleged that the withdrawal was irregular due to false claims made in the Ex-Parte Motion, specifically that the amount withdrawn was superfluous and duplicitous, as a sufficient supersedeas bond had already been posted. The absence of the Ex-Parte Motion from the official records of Branch 54 further complicated the matter, raising serious questions about the propriety of the withdrawal.

Complainant Sy alleged that the assertion made in the Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Rental Deposits was false. He claimed that the supersedeas bond posted with Branch 32 did not justify the withdrawal of rental deposits made in Branch 54. According to Sy, the deposits made with Branch 54 covered the period from June 30, 1989, to August 5, 1994, while those made in Branch 32 covered the period from September 30, 1994, to January 3, 1997, indicating that there could have been no duplication. The failure to furnish him a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion and the lack of a hearing compounded the irregularities.

The Supreme Court focused on Atty. Bayhon’s conduct concerning the directives to explain the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Ex-Parte Motion and to provide a copy of the same. The Court highlighted that Atty. Bayhon’s explanations were evasive, and his compliance was delayed, warranting a disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that resolutions from the Supreme Court should be treated with utmost respect and complied with promptly, and failure to do so indicates disrespect towards the judicial system. This is reinforced by case law; as the Court stated in Tugot v. Judge Coliflores, 467 Phil. 391, 402-403 (2004):

A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive.

The Court noted Atty. Bayhon’s violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.” Despite his claims that he never asserted the deposits with Branch 32 were superfluous, the Order of Judge Liwag explicitly stated that the withdrawal was based on the attachments to the Ex-Parte Motion indicating a sufficient supersedeas bond with Branch 32. This contradiction suggested an attempt to mislead the Court, especially since Atty. Bayhon failed to produce the Ex-Parte Motion to prove otherwise. His unsubstantiated claims and selective memory raised doubts about his credibility and integrity.

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Bayhon’s actions warranted disciplinary measures, specifically suspension from the practice of law. The Court referenced Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the disbarment or suspension of attorneys for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or any violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The Lawyer’s Oath states:

I, _____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

The court emphasized that Atty. Bayhon’s failure to comply with multiple resolutions and his misleading claims significantly delayed the administrative investigation. As a lawyer and officer of the court, he was expected to uphold the integrity of the legal process and adhere to the directives of the Court. The Court found that he had attempted to mislead the Court, showed indifference to its directives, and affected the investigation of an administrative matter, warranting the imposition of suspension from the practice of law for six months. Furthermore, the imposition of suspension sends a strong message to the legal community about the importance of honesty, accountability, and compliance with court directives.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Walfredo C. Bayhon violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by misleading the court and failing to comply with its directives. The investigation focused on irregularities related to the withdrawal of rental deposits based on an Ex-Parte Motion he filed.
What specific violations was Atty. Bayhon found guilty of?	Atty. Bayhon was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 10, Rule 10.01 states that “[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”
What was the significance of the missing Ex-Parte Motion?	The Ex-Parte Motion’s absence from the official records raised suspicions about the legitimacy of the withdrawal of rental deposits. It also complicated the investigation, as it was difficult to verify the claims made in the motion and the basis for Judge Liwag’s order.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Bayhon?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Bayhon from the practice of law for six months, effective immediately upon receipt of the decision. This penalty was in addition to a fine of P500.00 previously imposed, which he had not yet paid.
Why was Atty. Bayhon’s compliance with the court’s resolutions considered unsatisfactory?	Atty. Bayhon’s explanations were deemed evasive and non-responsive to the court’s questions. He failed to provide a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion or adequately explain why he filed it with Branch 55 instead of Branch 54, which was the appropriate venue.
What rule in the Rules of Court allows for the suspension of attorneys?	Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows for the disbarment or suspension of attorneys for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, or willful disobedience of a court order.
How did Atty. Bayhon attempt to mislead the court, according to the decision?	Atty. Bayhon attempted to mislead the court by claiming that the deposits withdrawn from Branch 54 were replaced by a supersedeas bond, which contradicted the explicit statement in Judge Liwag’s order. He also failed to provide evidence to support his claim.
What message does this ruling send to the legal community?	This ruling underscores the importance of honesty, transparency, and compliance with court directives for all legal professionals. It emphasizes that any attempt to mislead the court or obstruct the administration of justice will be met with serious consequences.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sy v. Esponilla and Dela Cruz-Buendia serves as a stern reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers and the severe consequences of failing to meet these standards. The case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and ensuring that officers of the court act with honesty and fidelity in all their dealings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ELPIDIO SY VS. EDGAR ESPONILLA AND JENNIFER DELA CRUZ-BUENDIA, AM No. P-06-2261, December 11, 2013