Canon 18

Pitcher vs Gagate
Complainant: Mrs. Ma. Cristina Pitcher
Respondent: Atty. Rustico Gagate
FACTS:

Mrs.
Pitcher
engaged
the
services of Atty. Gagate for the
settlement
of
the
40%
shareholdings owned by her
deceased husband in Consulting
Edge in the Philippines.
Due
to
disagreements
of
complainant with the major
stockholder of Consulting Edge
(Bantegui) , Atty. Gagate without
the consent of Bantegui caused
the change of door locks and
paper seal in the office of
Consulting Edge, Inc, which
prevented the employees from
entering the building and carrying
on the operations of the
company.
Bantegui
filed
a
criminal
complaint of grave coercion
against Mrs. Pitcher and her
counsel.
Respondent advised Mrs. Pitcher
to file a civil cases against
Bantegui for the recovery of
husbands
personal
records/business
interest
in
Consulting Edge Inc. Mrs. Pitcher
agreed and paid respondent
P150,000 of acceptance fee.
When warrant of arrest was
issued against Mrs. Pitcher and

respondent, the latter advised

Mrs. Pitcher to hide until the
respondent
filed
necessary
motions in court.
Thereafter, Mrs. Pitcher did not
see respondent again despite her
diligent
effort
to
talk
to
respondent about the case. Thus,
Mrs.
Pitcher
filed
an
administrative case against Atty.
Gagate before the IBP-CBD

IBP-CBD: respondent failed to

safeguard complainants legitimate
interest and abandoned her in the
grave coercion case.
OBC(Office of the Bar Confidant):
Suggested a six-month suspension
from the practice of law.
SC:

The

Supreme

Court

emphasized

that

relationship

between

the
a

lawyer and his client is one

imbued with utmost trust
and

confidence.

In

this

regard, clients are led to

expect that lawyers would
be

ever-mindful

cause

and

exercise
degree

their

accordingly

the
of

of

required

diligence

handling their affairs.

in

For his part, the lawyer is

that the respondent failed

expected to maintain at all

to exercise the required

times a high standard of

diligence

in

handling

legal proficiency, and to

complainants

cause

devote his full attention,

since he: (1) failed to

skill, and competence to the

represent

her

case,

competently

and

regardless

of

its

importance and whether he

diligently by acting and

accepts it for a fee or for

proffering

free.
To this end, he is enjoined

professional

advice beyond the proper

bounds of law; and, (2)

to employ only fair and

abandoned

honest

cause while the grave

lawful

means

to

objectives.

attain
These

principles are embodied in

Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of

coercion

his
case

clients
against

them was pending.

Respondent

was

Canon 18, and Rule 19.01

suspended for three years

of Canon 19 of the Code.

from practice of law.

Thus, the Court found