EN BANC
A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017
SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Complainants Silvestra Medina (Silvestra) and her nephew Santos Medina Loraya (Santos) filed a Complaint1 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo (Atty. Lizardo). Complainants allege that Silvestra, because of her advanced age, entrusted the owner's duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 13866 and 3900 to Atty. Lizardo. However, since complainants are not the only owners of the properties covered by said TCTs, and other heirs were asking for the original duplicate copies, complainants went to the residence of Atty. Lizardo and requested the return of said TCTs on March 5, 2011. Atty. Lizardo refused to turn over the TCTs to the complainants. Complainants submitted the following prayer in their Complaint:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission, after hearing, THAT:In his Answer,3 Atty. Lizardo primarily argues that the Commission on Bar Discipline has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint since it involves an action for specific performance.
- Respondent turnover to the custody of complainant SILVESTRA MEDINA the above-mentioned original duplicate of certificate of titles in the presence of the Honorable Commission or its duly authorized representative;chanrobleslaw
- Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.2
1. Na, ako ay isang kamagari sa sa [sic] dalawang lagay na lupa na nasa Cupang, Muntinlupa, Rizal (Metro-Manila) na ang nasabing dalawang lagay na lupa ay kilala sa mga sumusunod:The Malayang Salaysay was signed by Silvestra and notarized by Atty. Lizardo. Atty. Lizardo also presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay5 of the late Alicia Medina dated May 24, 1982 stating that she received the amount of P10,000.00 as initial payment for the sale of the property."Lot 457 Muntinlupa Estate (LRC) Record No. 6137 situated at Cupang, Muntinlupa, Rizal, with an area of 664 Sqms.""Lot 458 Muntinlupa Estate (LRC) Record No. 6137 situated at Cupang, Muntinlupa, Rizal with and area of 1427 Sqms."
na ang nasabing mga lagay na lupa sa itaas nito ay sinasakop ng isang Titul, "Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23866 ng Talaan ng mga kasulatan sa Rizal[.]ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That, we, together with SILVESTRA MEDINA, owner of the other [o]ne (112) half portion of the above-mentioned [o]ne [f]ourth (1/4) portion of the estate of ALICIA MEDINA LORAYA by these presents have decided to sell the (sic) our share, interest and participation over the parcels of land described above:Atty. Lizardo avers that when complainants learned that the sheriff was implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 18400, they demanded the return of the two TCTs.
That, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, receipt of which in full satisfaction is acknowledged and confessed, hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto and in favor of Spouses RENATO MARTINEZ and PURIFICACION LOMEDA MARTINEZ our share, interest and participation in the above-mentioned Three (3) parcels of land, known as Lot 456, covered by TCT 3900 and Lot 457 and 458, covered by TCT 13866 free from any liens and encumbrances except those required by law.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
As above stated, during the mandatory conference, Mr. Santos Medina Loraya stated the following:The Investigating Commissioner further observed that Atty. Lizardo did not merely represent conflicting interests, but even actively participated in deceiving his clients, the complainants in the case at bar:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryMr. Santos Medina Loraya: Paanong mangyaring naiipit e sya ang legal counsel po namin. Siguro kami ang dapat niyang protektahan.The question thrown by the complainants during the said conference is very alarming as far as the undersigned is concerned.
(TSN dated July 21, 2011, page 38)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Complainants firmly believe that as their lawyer, Atty. Lizardo should protect their interests and legal rights. Respondent should not favor other persons except his clients. It would appear that as admitted by Renata Martinez, he was the one who shouldered all legal expenses including that of the respondent. Respondent should not have allowed the same to happen because definitely, a conflict of interest might arise later on, as what is happening now. Respondent is lawyering for the complainants and at the same time, lawyering for the interest of Renata Martinez.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Not only that, respondent allowed himself to be used by Renata Martinez in deceiving the complainants to make it appear that they sold three (3) parcels of land. The intention to deceive the complainants and the heirs is very evident because as stated by the complainants, the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale was signed during the wake of Alicia Medina. Why would an Extra-judicial Settlement with Sale be executed and signed at the time of the wake of Alicia Medina? Why is the respondent and Renato Martinez in a hurry to have the document signed?On Atty. Lizardo's allegation that the Commission on Bar Discipline does not have jurisdiction over the complaint, the report adopted by the IBP Board of Governors held:
Probably, the heirs, at the time were still grieving for the loss of Alicia Medina. The timing of the preparation and signing is highly questionable as far as the undersigned is concerned.15 (Underscoring omitted.)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is the position of the respondent that the Commission on Bar Discipline has no jurisdiction on the subject controversy. The undersigned begs to differ. The Commission on Bar Discipline, as the investigating body of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction over all cases involving lawyers. The jurisdiction of this Commission covers transactions committed either in their personal or professional capacity. x x x.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryAtty. Lizardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration,17 alleging that he did not represent conflicting interests. He claims that Silvestra, Alicia and Martinez all engaged his services to file the partition case, but agreed that the named complainants shall only be Silvestra and Alicia in accordance with the decision of the CFI of Pasay City. As the share of Silvestra and Alicia were already sold to Martinez, it was Martinez who shouldered the expenses and appeared in every hearing. According to Atty. Lizardo, Silvestra, Alicia, and Martinez had the same interest in the filing of the partition case.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts[.]ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThis Court has explained the test in determining whether conflicting interests are being represented in this wise:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.21 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn another case, we held that:
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. It also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. This rule applies regardless of the degree of adverse interests. What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.22 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn the case at bar, it is undeniable that complainants Silvestra and Santos, on one hand, and Martinez, on the other, have conflicting interests with regard to the disputed property, particularly Lot 456 covered by TCT No. 3900 which complainants assert they never sold to Martinez. Atty. Lizardo now finds himself arguing against the ownership by Silvestra and Santos of their shares in the disputed property, which is the very legal position he was bound to defend as their counsel in the partition case.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.Atty. Lizardo's withholding of the TCTs entrusted to him by his clients to protect another purported client who surreptitiously acquired his services despite a conflict of interest is therefore a clear violation of several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. For this reason, we also uphold the grant of complainants' prayer for the return of the subject titles which they turned over to Atty. Lizardo for safekeeping. In any event, the return of said TCTs will not unduly prejudice Martinez who may cause his adverse claim to be duly annotated thereon.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2 Id. at 4.
3 Id. at 9-14.
4 Id. at 15.
5 Id. at 16.
6 Id. at 17-19.
7 Id. at 20-22.
8 Id. at 23-24.
9 Id. at 30-33.
10 Complainants speak of Lots 457 and 458 both covered by TCT No. 13866 as one parcel of land.
11 TSN, July 21, 2011, p. 37, rollo, p. 85.
12See Order dated November 4, 2011, rollo, p. 102.
13Rollo, pp. 133-144, submitted by Commissioner Jose I. dela Rama, Jr.
14 Id. at 140.
15 Id. at 141-142.
16 Id. at 143.
17 Id. at 195-212.
18 Id. at 201.
19 Id. at 214-219.
20 Id. at 226-227.
21Hornilla v. Salunat, 453 Phil. 108, 111-112 (2003).
22Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015, 763 SCRA 288, 295.
23Rollo, p. 20.
24 CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
x x x x
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
25cralawred 568 Phil. 379, 388 (2008).
26 Id.