Valencia v. Atty.

Cabanting

196 SCRA 302 April 26, 1991

Facts:

In 1933, complainant Paulino Valencia and his wife allegedly bought a parcel of land, where they
built their house, from a certain Serapia Raymundo, an heir of Pedro Raymundo the original
owner. However, they failed to register the sale or secure a transfer certificate of title in their
names. A conference was held in the house of Atty. Eduardo Jovellanos to settle the land dispute
between Serapia and the Valencia spouses. Serapia was willing to relinquish ownership if the
Valencias could show documents evidencing ownership. Paulino exhibited a deed of sale written
in the Ilocano dialect. However, Serapia claimed that the deed covered a different property.
Serapia, assisted by Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting, filed a complaint against Paulino for the
recovery of possession with damages. The Valencias engaged the services of Atty. Dionisio
Antiniw. Atty. Antiniw advised them to present a notarized deed of sale in lieu of the private
document written in Ilocano. For this purpose, Paulino gave Atty. Antiniw an amount of P200.00
to pay the person who would falsify the signature of the alleged vendor. A "Compraventa
Definitiva" as a result thereof.

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, rendered a decision in favor of Serapia. Paulino filed
a Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction before the CA. While the petition was pending,
the Trial Court issued an order of execution stating that "the decision in this case has already
become final and executory".

On March 20, 1973, Serapia sold 40 square meters of the litigated lot to Atty. Jovellanos and the
remaining portion she sold to her counsel, Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting, on April 25, 1973.
Paulino filed a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Cabanting on the ground that said counsel
allegedly violated Article 1491 of the New Civil Code as well as Article II of the Canons of
Professional Ethics, prohibiting the purchase of property under litigation by a counsel. The
appellate court dismissed the petition of Paulino.

Constancia Valencia, daughter of Paulino, also filed a disbarment proceeding against Atty.
Dionisio Antiniw for his participation in the forgery and its subsequent introduction as evidence for
his client; and also, against Attys. Eduardo Jovellanos and Arsenio Cabanting for purchasing a
litigated property allegedly in violation of Article 1491 of the New Civil Code; and against the three
lawyers, for allegedly rigging the case against her parents.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Cabanting purchased the subject property in violation of Art. 1491 of the New
Civil Code.

Ruling:

Under Article 1491 of the New Civil Code: The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
even at a public of judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, Justices,
judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or
levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall
apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation
in which they make take part by virtue of their profession.

Public policy prohibits the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved. It is intended
to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client. Greed may get the better of the
sentiments of loyalty and disinterestedness. Any violation of this prohibition would constitute
malpractice and is a ground for suspension. Art. 1491, prohibiting the sale to the counsel
concerned, applies only while the litigation is pending.

In the case at bar, while it is true that Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting purchased the lot after finality
of judgment, there was still a pending certiorari proceeding. A thing is said to be in litigation not
only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but also from the moment that it becomes
subject to the judicial action of the judge. Logic indicates, in certiorari proceedings, that the
appellate court may either grant or dismiss the petition. Hence, it is not safe to conclude, for
purposes under Article 1491 that the litigation has terminated when the judgment of the trial court
become final while a certiorari connected therewith is still in progress. Thus, purchase of the
property by Atty. Cabanting in this case constitutes malpractice in violation of Art. 1491 and the
Canons of Professional Ethics. Clearly, this malpractice is a ground for suspension. The sale in
favor of Atty. Jovellanos does not constitute malpractice. There was no attorney-client relationship
between Serapia and Atty. Jovellanos, considering that the latter did not take part as her counsel.
The transaction is not covered by Art. 1491 nor by the Canons adverted to.