Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Same; Same; Rule 16.03. This rule provides that a lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. He
must make an accounting whenever necessary in order to assure that
all the money entrusted to him was used by him as ordered by the
client.
PERALTA, J.;
FACTS:
Petitioners in the present case are common-law husband and
wife who put up a pension house in Puerto Prinsesa, Palawan. They
stared looking for a piece of land since they needed a bigger place.
They met the respondent, Atty. Alisuag, who recommended a lot and
told the former that vendors of the said lot, Rogelio Garcia and
Rosalina Talorong, had full right to dispose it.
Atty. Alisuag prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the subject property. Basiyo signed the document as the
vendee. Previously, Atty. Alisuag also signed an Agreement executed
by the same parties for the same price. Said agreement, however, was
allegedly not duly notarized.
For brokering the sale, and preparing and notarizing the
documents, Alisuag received one percent (1%) of the total purchase
price. Petitioners likewise gave him some money for capital gains tax,
estate tax, publication, and for documentary stamp tax. Since
complainants were intending to use the property for business
purposes, Alisuag offered to make for them an Environmental Impact
Study for a Wildlife Permit, for the amount of P300,000.00, and to file
an application for said permit for another P300,000.00. Petitioners,
however, not only failed to get the title to the property, but were
likewise subjected to a criminal charge by Trinidad Ganzon, who
claimed real ownership over the land. Thus, petitioners gave Alisuag
some money for the filing of their counter-affidavit in said case and for
the filing of a civil case against Ganzon.
After several months and attempts to contact Alisuag,
complainants were still unable to acquire the title and fence the
purchased lot, the environmental study and wildlife permit remained
unaccomplished, and no case was filed against Ganzon. They then
decided to consult another laywer and told Atty. Alisuag’s wife that
they wanted an accounting of the expenses and return any remaining
money given in connection with the sale.
Atty. Alisuag denied the petitioner’s accusations. He
contended that he was not part of the group of brokers who convinced
Simmons to purchase the property.
Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of
the complaint against Atty. Alisuag due to lack of merit. However, the
IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution which reversed the
recommendation of the Commission. The Board found Atty. Alisuag
guilty of deceit and falsification and ordered his suspension from
practice of law for two years. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alisuag violated various rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibilty.
HELD:
AFFIRMATIVE. The court ruled that a member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to the practice of law. Atty. Alisuag clearly violated his duty
in upholding the respect for law and protecting the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. He allowed and acknowledged a
document which was meant to circumvent laws and deprive the
government of the correct amount of taxes. Additionally, he
undoubtedly violated the some provisions of the CPR when he failed to
file the suit against Ganzon and secure the required environmental
permits, and when he refused to account for the amounts given to him
by complainants. Specifically, he violated rule 16.01 which provides
that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client; rule 16.03 which states that a lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. Alisuag’s failure and inordinate refusal to render an
accounting and return the money after some demands raises a
presumption that he had converted it to his own use.
The court futher ruled that Atty. Alisuag, as a notary public
has duty to defend a client's cause within the bounds of law, a notary
public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and confidence
in his office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the
integrity of every document that comes under his notarial seal, and
seeing to it that only documents that he personally inspected and
whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his notarial
books.
A.C. No. 11478 September 05, 2017
Spouses Chambon vs Atty. Christopher Ruiz
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed a complaint against Atty. Samuel SM.
Lezama with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for gross
misconduct. She stated that she was one of the co-owners of a parcel
of land in Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sibulan, Negros
Oriental. Being such, she engaged the services of Atty. Lezama to file
an unlawful detainer case against Carmelita S. Garlito with the
Municipal Trial Court of Sibulan, Negros Oriental. Since she was
working at Camp Aguinaldo at that time, Cerilla executed a Special
Power of Attorney in favor the accused lawyer. According to Cerilla,
the SPA she executed was used by the accused lawyer in order to
enter into a compromise agreement with unlawful detainer for the
price of Php350,000 without her consent. Furthermore, the
complainant accused the Atty. Lezama of misrepresenting her in the
compromise agreement since she never agreed with the amount
stated in the Compromise Agreement. Atty. Lezama, in his defense,
contended that the SPA given to him was sufficient authority to enter
into the said compromise agreement and that the agreed price of the
said property was the same amount the complainant paid for the
purchase of the property from the Gringio family. According to him, he
entered into the agreement in under the honest and sincere belief that
it was the fairest and equitable arrangement.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline held a mandatory conference and found that Atty. Lezama
was guilty of violating Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that the respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the report and the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. The respondent motioned for
recommendation which was denied by the IBP.
TIJAM, J.:
FACTS:
Carlina Robiñol filed a disbarment case against Atty. Edilberto P.
Bassig for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath. The complainant alleged that the respondent rented
ahouse from her In Brgy. Tanong, Marikina City with a monthly rental
of Php8,500. The lease was without any written contract and was for a
period of two years. Upon the agreement, Atty. Bassig agreed that he
will pay one-month advance and another month deposit but he did not
comply. Instead, he paid the monthly rental from June 13, 2010 to July
13, 2010. He then paid his rents belatedly from July 2010 to January
2012. After the said perios, he stopped making his payments. Robiñol
alleged that the las payment was in the amount of Php17,000 made in
July 2012. Atty. Bassige then promised that he will pay the remaining
unpaid rent and was then allowed to stay in the premises. When
Typhoon Habagat struck Marikina City, Atty. Bassig left without
informing Robiñol of his destination nor did he satisfy his unsettled
obligation. Robiñol found out that Atty. Bassig was staying with his
daughter and went there to demand for the payment. He executed a
promissory note in which he stated that he will pay half of the amount
due on August and the other half on September. However, he still did
not comply which prompted the complainant in instituting this case..
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Notice of
Mandatory Conference in which only Robiñol appeared. Likewise, the
Orders dated February 25, 201511 and March 25, 201512 issued by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) reveals that only Robifiol appeared in the scheduled
mandatory conferences.The report and recommendation by the
Commissioner dated November 20, 2015, stated that Atty. Bassig be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years for his
failure to answer despite due notice and to appear on the scheduled
hearings which showed his resistance to lawful orders and his
despiciency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP Board of
Governors then adopted the resolution and recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively
disciplined for not complying with the orders of the IBP-CBD.
HELD: Affrimative. Canon 11 of PRC states that A lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Thus, He is
liable for violating the aforecited rule as he filed to abide by the
orders of the IBP which indicates his lack of respect for the IBP’s rule
and regulations and the IBP itself. The Supreme Court reiterated that
his attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP indicates his lack
of respect for the IBP's rules and regulations22, but also towards the
IBP as an institution. Remarkably, the IBP is empowered by the
Supreme Court to conduct proceedings regarding the discipline of
lawyers. Hence, it is but proper for the respondet, Atty. Bassig to be
mindful of his duty as a member of the bar to maintain his respect
towards a duly constituted authority. In disregarding the orders of the
IBP, he exhibited a conduct which runs contrary to his sworn duty as
an officer of the court.He was now ordered to pay a fine of Php10,000
and being sternly warned.