A.C. No.

12457, April 02, 2019

REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III, COMPLAINANT VS
ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN, RESPONDENT

Case Digest by DK Maraon

This is an administrative complaint that arose from a criminal suit for estafa filed by complainant
Reverend Father Jose P. Zafra, III against Jojo R. Buniel and Anna Liza M. Guirnalda docketed as Criminal
Case No. 6538 with the RTC of Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, Branch 40; Atty. Renato B. Pagatpatan is the
counsel on record of Bruniel and Guirnalda.

FACTS:
- While criminal case was pending against Bruniel & Guirnalda, Atty. Pagatpatan wrote a letter to the
Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur requesting an investigation of Fr. Zafra for his
activities concocting stories against Bruniel & Guirnalda who were charged by said priest of estafa.
- Embarrassed by the “malicious” letter sent by Atty. Pagatpatan, Fr. Zafra willingly submits himself
for investigation by the Board of Consultors of the Bishopric, where later, he was able to clear his
name.
- Thereafter, Fr. Zafra filed a complaint against Atty. Pagatpatan with the IBP, positing that the
attorney’s action is a clear violation of Rule 1.02 of the CPR, which provides that “a lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system”; that Atty. Pagatpatan instigated them to stir controversies by making libelous & untruthful
accusations in his letter sent to the Bishop of the Diocese; that such act was not a form of sense of
duty xxx but to gratify the personal vendetta and animosity of his clients arrested for the crime of
estafa.
- Further, Fr. Zafra argues that Atty. Pagatpatan is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after
learning that in 2005, Atty. Pagatpatan had been suspended by the Supreme Court for two (2) years
in a decided case entitled Daniel Mortera, et al. VS. Atty. Renato Pagatpatan; that the order of
suspension had not yet been lifted by the Court. Notwithstanding all these, Pagatpatan continued to
practice law by representing party litigants in other cases before four (4) branches of RTC in Davao.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pagatpatan failed to live up to the standard of his profession as a lawyer by
breaking Rule 1.02 of the CPR, and by his continued practice of law despite suspension.

RULING:
Atty. Pagatpatan, as a member of the bar, is an “oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to
his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously
observant of law and ethics. The Supreme Court finds that Atty. Pagatpatan was motivated by malice in
writing said letter to the Diocese which is not in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
Atty. Pagatpatan admits that he continued practicing legal profession for over thirteen (13) years
notwithstanding order of suspension since June 2005. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that:
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court xxx for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The Court emphasizes that the practice of law is not a
right but a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to
exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. Atty. Pagatpatan’s acts in wantonly disobeying his
duties as an officer of the court show utter disrespect and mockery for the court and the legal profession.
Therefore, disbarment is warranted.