G.R. No. A.C. No. 12018. January 29, 2020
ZENAIDA MARTIN-ORTEGA, complainant, v. ATTY. ANGELYN A. TADENA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Zenaida Martin-Ortega filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Angelyn A. Tadena for gross misconduct. Zenaida alleged that on December 7, 2011, while she was in Davao City, her estranged husband Leonardo G. Ortega, Jr., accompanied by Atty. Tadena (his counsel) and armed men, attempted to forcibly enter her condominium unit in Quezon City. Zenaida’s bodyguard, Allan Afable, prevented entry. Atty. Tadena allegedly intimidated Afable, shouted expletives, and called a locksmith to forcibly open the unit. After gaining entry, Leonardo and Atty. Tadena rummaged through Zenaida’s belongings, padlocked the door, and later, Zenaida discovered missing items, including a laptop and luxury bags. Zenaida filed a robbery case and this administrative complaint.
In her defense, Atty. Tadena denied the allegations, asserting she was defending Leonardo’s rights as co-owner of the conjugal property. She claimed Leonardo was unlawfully prevented from entering his own unit and that the robbery accusation was fabricated by Zenaida as a defense in an adultery case filed against her. Atty. Tadena also refuted allegations that a Louis Vuitton bag she possessed was stolen, stating she bought it secondhand.
During proceedings, Zenaida raised a new allegation of collusion, presenting an email from Atty. Tadena to Zenaida’s then-counsels (Attys. Eric Reginaldo and Neil Cariaga) discussing the filing of a petition for annulment of marriage and sharing legal fees. The IBP Investigating Commissioner initially recommended admonition for Atty. Tadena. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified this to a three-month suspension but later, upon reconsideration, reverted to the admonition with a stern warning. The BOG also issued a show-cause order against Attys. Tadena, Reginaldo, and Cariaga regarding the collusion allegation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Angelyn A. Tadena should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the allegations of intimidation, forcible entry, and collusion.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP BOG Resolution dated May 27, 2017. Atty. Tadena was ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court found that while Atty. Tadena’s actions in defending her client’s property rights were not entirely baseless, her conduct—including intimidating Zenaida’s bodyguard and participating in the forcible opening of the unit—fell short of the professionalism required of lawyers. However, the evidence did not establish gross misconduct warranting suspension or disbarment.
Regarding collusion, the Court DIRECTED the Office of the Bar Confidant to INITIATE separate administrative proceedings against Atty. Tadena, Atty. Eric Reginaldo, and Atty. Neil Cariaga based on the email evidence suggesting collusion in filing the annulment petition. The Court emphasized that lawyers must uphold the law and avoid any conduct that undermines the administration of justice.