TL;DR

In a disciplinary case, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda from the practice of law for one year. The Court found Tacorda guilty of misconduct for filing a motion against his own clients, Romeo and Cirila Adan, accusing them of misleading the court and evading attorney’s fees. Tacorda also sent insulting text messages to the Adans. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain client loyalty and professional conduct, even in fee disputes, and cannot use abusive language towards clients. This decision reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers in their dealings with clients, highlighting that betraying client trust and resorting to unprofessional behavior will be met with disciplinary action.

When Counsel Turns Accuser: Betrayal and Abusive Language in Attorney-Client Relations

This case, Adan v. Tacorda, revolves around a complaint filed by Romeo and Cirila Adan against their lawyer, Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda, for malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The Adans engaged Atty. Tacorda to represent them in a perjury case. However, their professional relationship deteriorated when Atty. Tacorda filed a “Motion to Issue Show Cause Order” against his own clients, alleging they provided a false address to the court and were evading attorney’s fees. This motion was filed without the Adans’ knowledge or consent and contained accusations detrimental to their defense. Adding insult to injury, Atty. Tacorda responded to the Adans’ inquiries about the motion with a barrage of offensive text messages. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Tacorda’s actions constituted a breach of professional ethics warranting disciplinary action.

The factual backdrop reveals that the Adans had paid Atty. Tacorda for professional fees and transportation expenses. Despite this, Atty. Tacorda filed the controversial motion, claiming the Adans provided a false address and were evading payments. The motion included the statement: “even this [representative] has a hard time [locating] and [contacting] their whereabouts, moreover frequently evading the payments of attorney’s fees and legal and legitimate expenses in connection [with] their cases.” This assertion directly contradicted the Adans’ interests in the perjury case. Furthermore, Atty. Tacorda’s text messages to the Adans were far from professional, including phrases like “MGA ESTAPADOR. MGA ULOL” and “SIRA ULO KAYO SI ROMY AT DIDANG,” and “DI AKO PAO NA LIBRE AND SERBISYO KO, MGA ULOL.”

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint and recommended a three-month suspension for Atty. Tacorda. The IBP found that the motion was filed to pressure the Adans to pay fees, contradicting Atty. Tacorda’s claim of a “modified pro bono” arrangement. The IBP also highlighted the violation of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandates lawyers to observe fidelity to their clients. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s findings but added a fine for Atty. Tacorda’s failure to attend mandatory hearings.

The Supreme Court affirmed Atty. Tacorda’s misconduct, emphasizing the violation of Canons 15 and 17 of the CPR. Canon 15 states, “A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.” Canon 17 further emphasizes, “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” The Court reasoned that by filing a motion against his own clients, Atty. Tacorda demonstrated an unwillingness to be faithful to their cause and acted in a manner conflicting with their interests. The Court noted that Atty. Tacorda was aware of the address issue but instead of resolving it privately with his clients, he sought to hold them in contempt, prioritizing his own interests over his clients’ defense.

Moreover, the Supreme Court found Atty. Tacorda in violation of Rule 20.04 of the CPR, which states, “A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.” While the motion was not a direct judicial action for fees, the Court considered it an attempt to use the court to pressure payment, which is discouraged by the rule. The Court also condemned Atty. Tacorda’s abusive text messages as a violation of Rule 14.04 of the CPR, stipulating that “A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.” The Court stressed that such unprofessional language tarnishes the legal profession and is unbecoming of a lawyer, regardless of fee arrangements.

Considering the gravity of the violations and Atty. Tacorda’s lack of remorse, evidenced by his failure to participate in IBP proceedings, the Supreme Court increased the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law, along with the P10,000.00 fine imposed by the IBP. The Court sternly warned Atty. Tacorda against future misconduct. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to all lawyers of their paramount duty of loyalty and fidelity to their clients and the necessity of maintaining professional decorum in all circumstances, especially in disputes concerning fees.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: Adan v. Tacorda, A.C. No. 12826, February 01, 2021