Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

FERNANDEZ vs.

ATTY VILLAON

Facts:

Palacios, in his Complaint in Civil Case No. 05-1017, alleged that he was the owner of a lot covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 178587 located in Barangay San Lorenzo, Makati City.[3] He
allegedly inherited the lot from his mother. Sometime in June 2004, he became aware that his lot was
being eyed by a land-grabbing syndicate. The syndicate attempted to obtain a copy of TCT No. 178587
by pretending to be Carlos Palacios, Jr., and by filing a Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of Lost Owners
Duplicate Original Copy of TCT No. 178587.
On September 27, 2005, when Palacios visited the Village Administrator of the San Lorenzo Village
Association, he bumped into Mrs. Jocelyn Lirio who expressed her interest in Palacios San Lazaro
property. She had heard it was being sold by Fernandez. Palacios was surprised by Mrs. Lirios story, as
he had no intention of selling the property. Upon investigation, he discovered that Fernandez had
falsified a Deed of Donation that he (Palacios) purportedly executed in Fernandez favor. This Deed was
duly registered, and on the strength of the purported donation, TCT No. 178587 in Palacios name was
cancelled, and a new TCT (TCT No. 220869) was issued in Fernandez name.

Palacios then employed the services of respondent Atty. Villalon to file a Complaint for the declaration
of nullity of the Deed of Donation that became the basis for the issuance of a title in Fernandez
name.This complaint was subsequently amended to implead Romeo Castro, Atty. Augusto P. Jimenez,
Jr., Levy R. De Dios, and Rosario T. Abobo.

Fernandez filed disbarment against Atty Villalon


Basis: rule 10.01 (10.03, 10.02, 7.02, 1.01)
1. That Atty Villalon suppressed his knowledge regarding the existence of deed of absolute sale
2. Deceived the court in making use the spurious deed of donation
3. Committed misrepresentation (in verifying whether a deed of absolute sale exists, he wrote
that there is a pending case regarding the document)
4. Refused to receive complainant’s Answer with compulsory counterclaim
5. Induced witness Heredia to sign a false affidavit
6. Submitted the deed of donation for NBI’s signature test but did not do the same for deed of
absolute sale

ISSUE:

Whether allegations against Atty. Villalon constitute grounds for disbarment


IBP:

 There is no duty on part of Villalon to disclose his knowledge of the existence of an absolute
deed of sale (under law or rules of court, not duty bound); since it is an evidence and a matter of
defense for the opposing party
 Only operative facts not evidentiary facts are needed to be included in the complaint
 No suppression of evidence committed
 Not required to divulge his knowledge about the existence of absolute deed of sale since this
obtainable through some other source if inquired with diligence (Notarial section)
 Respondent is limited by his clients cause of action
 That no consideration was given for the deed of absolute sale and is consequently arguing that
the deed is void (contention of Fernandez)
 In the complaint of misrepresentation, there is no evil intent on part of Atty Villalon saying that
there is a pending case, in fact a civil case was instituted the next day.
 For accusation regarding non-receipt of answer with compulsary counterclaim, it was not
substantiated.

SC RULING: NO.

- Do not constitute grounds for disbarment


- Lawyer has duty to be truthful, but not required to build case for his client’s opponent; it is
immaterial to the goal of the client of Villalon – to recover the property
- Since the existence of absolute deed of sale is a matter of defense for the other party, counsel
need not the divulge his knowledge about this
- Furthermore, Absolute deed of sale was not registered, it cannot be a basis for transfer of title
- Regarding retraction of Heredia, Fernandez cannot dispute this anymore since he passed up his
chance when had was asked to cross examine witness – retraction has no particular relevance.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi