Pitcher v Gagate

Cabugao, Kristina DR. CANON 19

Case: MARIA CRISTINA ZABALJAUREGUI PITCHER, complainant, vs. ATTY. RUSTICO B. GAGATE, respondent. (A.C. No. 9532. October 8, 2013.) FACTS:

Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late David B. Pitcher who owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged the services of respondent. Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss d iscuss the settlement of David’s interest in the company. Prior to another scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the premises. Bantegui expressed disappointment over these actions then asked them to leave and refused to give them a duplicate key. Respondent caused the change in the lock of the office door. This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint for grave coercion.  The Prosecutor’s Office issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge complainant and respondent. Respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the motions in court. However, respondent stopped communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent, complainant filed this administrative case before the In tegrated Bar of the Philippines. ISSUE:

Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s complainant’s cause since he: first, failed to represent her competently; and, second, abandoned abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending. Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states: CANON 19 –  19 –  A  A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 –  19.01 –  A  A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall sha ll not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.  The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three  years.