Post

Lantoria vs. Bunyi

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Lantoria vs. Bunyi

Case Title and Citation

Cesar L. Lantoria, complainant, vs. Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi, respondent.
A.M. No. 1769, June 8, 1992
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Per Curiam

Facts

  • Mrs. Constancia M. Mascarinas of Manila owned a farm in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur; Cesar L. Lantoria was the farm’s manager and supervisor and received a monthly allowance.
  • Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 in the Municipal Court of Esperanza involved actions to eject squatters from the farm. The acting municipal judge was Vicente C. Galicia, who was then also the regular judge of the municipal court of Bayugan.
  • The defendants in the said civil cases were declared in default.
  • Correspondence between respondent Bunyi and complainant Lantoria includes:
    1. A letter from Lantoria to Bunyi dated April 23, 1974 indicating Lantoria informed Judge Galicia of Bunyi’s willingness to prepare the decisions and that Judge Galicia recommended mailing the decisions through Lantoria.
    2. A letter from Bunyi to Lantoria dated June 1, 1974 stating Bunyi had prepared three decisions against the defaulted defendants, that he was enclosing the draft decisions, and requesting Lantoria to mediate with Judge Galicia and obtain copies after the judge signed them.
    3. An earlier Bunyi letter dated March 4, 1974 asking Lantoria to deliver an envelope addressed to Judge Galicia as if Lantoria had no prior knowledge of its contents and suggesting delivery at the judge’s residence.
  • On April 11, 1977, Lantoria filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court alleging Bunyi committed graft, corruption, dishonesty, conduct unbecoming a member of the Integrated Bar, and corruption of the judge and bribery, based mainly on the three letters.
  • This Court, by resolution dated November 28, 1977, referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation.
  • The Solicitor General reported on July 21, 1980, that:
    1. Hearings had been set on April 12, September 29, and December 18, 1978, but only respondent Bunyi appeared on those dates.
    2. At the January 16, 1979 hearing both parties appeared; complainant submitted a sworn letter dated January 16, 1979 requesting withdrawal of the complaint, alleging inability to substantiate charges and expressing lack of interest in prosecuting; respondent did not object to withdrawal.
    3. The Solicitor General found the Bunyi letters showed Bunyi prepared draft decisions and had communications with Judge Galicia.
  • Respondent admitted the existence of the letters, apologized for any improprieties, and in his memorandum (filed November 16, 1981) denied offering gifts or consideration to influence the judge.
  • The Court examined the effect of respondent’s admitted acts on his duties as lawyer and officer of the court and referenced Canon No. 3 of the then-applicable Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 13 and Rule 13.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated June 23, 1988).

Issues

  1. Whether respondent prepared drafts of the judgments in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 and submitted them to Judge Galicia through the complainant?
  2. Whether respondent’s preparation and delivery of draft decisions amounted to an attempt to influence the court and constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of applicable professional canons?
  3. Whether complainant’s withdrawal of the administrative complaint precludes the Supreme Court from proceeding with disciplinary action against respondent?

Ruling

  1. Yes - The respondent admitted the existence of the letters and the letters themselves indicate he prepared draft decisions and submitted them to Judge Galicia through complainant.
  2. Yes - The Court found respondent’s acts to be an attempt to influence the court and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, violating Canon No. 3 of the then-applicable Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 13 and Rule 13.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Discipline was warranted.
  3. No - Complainant’s withdrawal did not bar the Court from proceeding; respondent’s admission and the documentary evidence justified continuing the disciplinary proceeding.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Evidence and admissions:
    1. The Court relied on the three letters dated March 4, 1974; April 23, 1974; and June 1, 1974, and respondent’s admission of their existence to conclude respondent prepared draft decisions and had prior communications with Judge Galicia about their preparation.
  • Effect on professional duties:
    1. The Court held that even absent evidence of gifts or other consideration, the act of drafting and submitting decisions to the trial judge for signature created an appearance of impropriety and tended to influence judicial determination in which respondent was counsel.
    2. The Court applied Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (in force at the time of the acts), which prohibits private communication or attempts to gain special personal consideration from judges, and noted the same policy in Canon 13 and Rule 13.01 of the later Code of Professional Responsibility, which rebuke any impropriety that tends to influence the court and prohibit cultivating familiarity with judges.
  • Public interest and disciplinary jurisdiction:
    1. The Solicitor General’s report and respondent’s own admissions permitted the Court to proceed despite complainant’s withdrawal; the administration of justice and maintenance of professional standards justified continuing the disciplinary action.
  • Sanction:
    1. The Court adopted the Solicitor General’s recommendation, finding suspension for one year appropriate given respondent’s breach of ethical obligations and the need to uphold judicial independence and public confidence.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • A lawyer must not prepare substantive judicial decisions for a judge in a pending case in which the lawyer is counsel, as such acts constitute an attempt to influence the court and create the appearance of impropriety.
  • Private communications or special solicitations to a judge concerning the merits of a pending cause are prohibited and subject the lawyer to discipline.
  • The Supreme Court may proceed with disciplinary action notwithstanding a complainant’s withdrawal when there is independent evidence and admissions establishing misconduct.
  • Canon No. 3 (Canons of Professional Ethics) and Canon 13 / Rule 13.01 (Code of Professional Responsibility) embody the prohibition against exerting personal influence on the court.

Disposition

  • Respondent Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year from the date of notice of this decision.
  • The decision shall be entered in the respondent’s bar records and the Court Administrator is directed to inform the various courts of the suspension.
  • The disciplinary complaint was sustained to the extent of imposing the one-year suspension.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • None stated. The decision is per curiam. Narvasa, C.J., and Justices Paras, Padilla, Regalado and Nocon concurred.

Significance / Notes

  • Reinforces that preparation of draft judgments by counsel for submission to a judge in a case where counsel represents a party undermines judicial independence and the appearance of impartiality.
  • Confirms that absence of proof of bribery or gift does not preclude discipline where conduct tends to influence the court or create an appearance of impropriety.
  • Affirms the Court’s authority to continue disciplinary proceedings despite a complainant’s withdrawal when there is sufficient evidence and an admission by the respondent.
  • The Court cited both the older Canons of Professional Ethics (Canon No. 3) applicable at the time of the acts and the later Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 13 and Rule 13.01) to underscore ongoing ethical standards.
Legal Ethics Judicial Conduct and Discipline Disciplinary Cases
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.