Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 671 views

    Reyes Vs Chiong

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    Atty. Reyes alleges that Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading him and Prosecutor Salanga as co-defendants in a civil case without justification. The civil case was originally filed regarding a business dispute but was amended to include Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The amendment and failure to use proper remedies suggests the civil action was intended to gain leverage in a related estafa case. As a lawyer, Atty. Chiong should have advised his client of available administrative and procedural remedies rather than misusing the legal process to harass the other parties. The Commission found Atty. Chiong violated his oath and Canon 8 by his actions

    Copyright:

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

    Reyes Vs Chiong

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    671 views2 pages
    Atty. Reyes alleges that Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading him and Prosecutor Salanga as co-defendants in a civil case without justification. The civil case was originally filed regarding a business dispute but was amended to include Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The amendment and failure to use proper remedies suggests the civil action was intended to gain leverage in a related estafa case. As a lawyer, Atty. Chiong should have advised his client of available administrative and procedural remedies rather than misusing the legal process to harass the other parties. The Commission found Atty. Chiong violated his oath and Canon 8 by his actions

    Original Description:

    Case

    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. Reyes alleges that Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading him and Prosecutor Salanga as co-defendants in a civil case without justification. The civil case was originally filed regarding a business dispute but was amended to include Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The amendment and failure to use proper remedies suggests the civil action was intended to gain leverage in a related estafa case. As a lawyer, Atty. Chiong should have advised his client of available administrative and procedural remedies rather than misusing the legal process to harass the other parties. The Commission found Atty. Chiong violated his oath and Canon 8 by his actions

    Copyright:

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

    Reyes Vs Chiong

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    Atty. Reyes alleges that Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by impleading him and Prosecutor Salanga as co-defendants in a civil case without justification. The civil case was originally filed regarding a business dispute but was amended to include Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga. The amendment and failure to use proper remedies suggests the civil action was intended to gain leverage in a related estafa case. As a lawyer, Atty. Chiong should have advised his client of available administrative and procedural remedies rather than misusing the legal process to harass the other parties. The Commission found Atty. Chiong violated his oath and Canon 8 by his actions

    Copyright:

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

    Atty. Ramon P. Reyes Vs Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong, A.C. No.

    5148, July 1, 2003

    Facts:
    Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu, a Chinese-
    Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry.

    Xu, through Atty. Reyes, filed a complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by
    respondent Atty. Chiong. The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor
    submitted his counter-affidavit.

    Atty. Chiong argued that he had shown no disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant
    in the civil case. He alleged that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant
    because of the irregularities the latter had committed in conducting the criminal investigation.

    Atty. Reyes was impleaded, because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing the estafa
    case, which Xu knew fully well was baseless. According to Atty. Chiong, the irregularities
    committed by Prosecutor
    Salanga in the criminal investigation and complainant‘s connivance therein were discovered
    only after the institution of the collection suit.

    Commissioner of the IBP held that Atty. Chiong had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga.
    In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility.

    Issue:
    Whether or not, Atty. Chiong violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

    Ruling:
    Yes.Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ―a lawyer shall conduct
    himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
    harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

    Respondent‘s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The Civil case was for the "collection of
    a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture." It had
    originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later modified to include complainant and
    Prosecutor Salanga.

    The amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper remedies strengthen
    complainant‘s allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against the estafa
    case. If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga‘s resolution, they should
    have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies. Respondent could have gone to
    the justice secretary and filed a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of
    Prosecutor Salanga‘s decision to file an information for estafa.

    Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant and


    Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer,
    respondent should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing
    of the civil case had no justification.

    It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a
    tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the
    legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to
    law, not to harass them.

    You might also like