Scribd
Upload
230 views1 page

Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212 (2003)

This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Chiong for filing a groundless civil suit. [1] Two businessmen had a dispute over an investment in a factory. When one filed an estafa case, the other retaliated by filing a civil suit naming the complainant, his lawyer, and the prosecutor. [2] The Supreme Court affirmed finding the civil suit was groundless and filed to harass the others. [3] Atty. Chiong was suspended for two years for violating his oath and ethical duties by filing a harassing and retaliatory suit.

Uploaded by

angelo prieto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
230 views1 page

Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212 (2003)

This case involved a disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Chiong for filing a groundless civil suit. [1] Two businessmen had a dispute over an investment in a factory. When one filed an estafa case, the other retaliated by filing a civil suit naming the complainant, his lawyer, and the prosecutor. [2] The Supreme Court affirmed finding the civil suit was groundless and filed to harass the others. [3] Atty. Chiong was suspended for two years for violating his oath and ethical duties by filing a harassing and retaliatory suit.

Uploaded by

angelo prieto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

 

 76. Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212 (2003)

REYES V. CHIONG

FACTS

Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a business venture to set up a factory for seafood
products. Xu invested P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not established the factory and asked for
his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored Xu. Xu engaged the services of Atty. Reyes, who filed a complaint
for estafa against Pan (represented by Atty. Chiong). The complaint was assigned to Asst. Manila City Prosecutor
Pedro Salanga, who issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. For failure to appear and
submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Pan in the RTC of Manila. The RTC
issued a warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest. He
also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga a civil complaint for the collection of a sum of money, damages, and for the
dissolution of the business venture against Xu, Atty. Reyes and Salanga. Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case
against Atty. Chiong for filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong
alleges that Atty. Reyes was impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing the estafa case. Salanga was impleaded
because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the investigation. The SC referred the case to the IBP.

ISSUE

W/N the civil complaint was groundless

W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in the civil complaint

HELD

Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in said civil
complaint.

IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case. There was no need to implead
Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga since they were not parties in the business venture. Their inclusion in the
complaint was improper and highly questionable and the suit was filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit,
Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2
years suspension

SC: affirmed IBP’s recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned some alternative remedies Atty. Chiong could
have taken if his allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have filed a motion for reinvestigation or motion for
reconsideration of Salanga’s decision to file the information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was also
available if it was indeed filed without basis.

Relevant Provisions:

Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards his professional colleagues,
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Lawyer’s Oath – “not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same.”

You might also like