EN BANC
A.C. No. 11483, October 03, 2017
LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERALTA, J.:
On November 22, 2010, complainant Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed an administrative complaint1 for gross misconduct against respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In her Complaint, complainant stated that she is one of the co-owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Sibulan, Negros Oriental, with an area of 730 square meters. The said property is covered by TCT No. 1-20416 and registered in the name of Fulquerio Gringio. It was later sold by his sole heir, Pancracio A. Gringio, to the heirs of Fabio2 Solmayor, including the herein complainant. Being a co-owner of the subject property, complainant engaged the services of respondent to file an unlawful detainer case against Carmelita S. Garlito with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sibulan, Negros Oriental. At that time, the complainant was working at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, and for this reason, she executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of the respondent to perform the following acts, to wit:
Complainant said that on the basis of the SPA, respondent entered into a compromise agreement with the defendant in the unlawful detainer case to sell the subject property of the complainant for P350,000.00 without her consent or a special authority from her. Paragraph 2 of the Compromise Agreement dated January 31, 2005 states:
(1) To represent and act on my behalf in filing a case of ejectment against Lita Garlito of Sibulan, Negros Oriental; (2) To appear on my behalf during the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. 497-04 and to make stipulations of facts, admissions and other matters for the early resolution of the same including amicable settlement of the case if necessary.3
2. The plaintiff is willing to sell [the] property in question to the defendant in the amount of P350,000.00 within a period of three months beginning February 1, 2005 up to April 30, 2005, the payment of which shall be paid in one setting.4The Compromise Agreement was approved by the MTC of Sibulan, Negros Oriental in an Order5 dated January 31, 2005. Subsequently, a Motion for Execution6 dated June 2, 2005 was filed due to complainant's failure to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the compromise agreement, as complainant refused to execute a Deed of Sale. The MTC issued a Writ of Execution7 on June 10, 2005.
(a) | The SPA dated December 27, 2004 was executed by the complainant in favor of the respondent due to her inability to attend every hearing of the unlawful detainer case; |
(b) | The SPA contains the sentence under number 2: "including amicable settlement of the case if necessary"; |
(c) | During the preliminary conference of the unlawful detainer case, the respondent requested Presiding Judge Rafael Cresencio C. Tan, Jr. to allow him to contact the complainant by mobile phone before any compromise agreement could be executed. Respondent tried several times to contact complainant to no avail during the recess. When the case was called again, he requested a resetting, but the Presiding Judge insisted on a compromise agreement to be submitted because respondent was armed with the necessary SPA anyway, and the result was the Compromise Agreement of January 31, 2005; |
(d) | Upon the signing of the Compromise Agreement, respondent was able to contact complainant, who objected to the agreement because the amount of P350,000.00 was small; |
(e) | After writing a letter of repudiation to the counsel of the defendant in the unlawful detainer case, respondent filed a Manifestation dated February 24, 2005 with the MTC of Sibulan, attaching therewith the letter of repudiation, and he also filed a Motion to Set Aside Order and to Annul Compromise Agreement9 (on the ground of mistake). However, the MTC denied the said motion in an Order10 dated May 30, 2005. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the MTC; |
(f) | In 2006, the heirs of Favio Solmayor filed another unlawful detainer case over the same property with the same MTC against the same defendant, which was dismissed by the court on the ground of res judicata;11 and |
(g) | In 2008, complainant filed a civil case12 for annulment of judgment/quieting of title, recovery of possession and damages against Carmelita S. Garlito, respondent Atty. Lezama and the MTC of Sibulan, Negros Oriental, and the case is still pending before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 35, Negros Oriental.13 |
The Investigating Commissioner stated that respondent must have overlooked the fact that the subject property was co-owned by complainant's siblings. Respondent knew about the co-ownership because of the existence of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate,16 but he did not assert that his authority to compromise binds only the complainant. Respondent merely made a flimsy excuse as shown in the transcript of stenographic notes, to wit:
Comm. De La Rama : Prior to the execution of the compromise agreement on January 31, 2005, were you under instruction by Ms. Cerilla to sell the property? Atty. Lezama : No, Your Honor. Comm. De La Rama : You were not? Atty. Lezama : There was none. Comm. De La Rama : So what prompted you to [have] that idea that Ms. Cerilla is willing to sell this property in the amount of Php350,000.00? Atty. Lezama : Because that is the same amount that she paid [for] the property. It is an amicable settlement in meeting halfway. Comm. De La Rama : But you at that time, prior to the signing of the Compromise Agreement, you do not have any instruction from Ms. Cerilla to sell the property? Atty. Lezama : No, Your Honor. Comm. De La Rama : So it was your own volition? Atty. Lezama : Yes, my own belief.15
The Investigating Commissioner stated that the transcript of stenographic notes shows that respondent admitted that complainant did not grant him the authority to sell the property in the amount of P350,000.00. Thus, knowing that he did not possess such authority, respondent cannot validly claim that his client, complainant herein, was willing to sell the property in the amount of 350,000.00.
Comm. De La Rama : Are you aware, Atty. Lezama, that the property does not belong exclusively to Ms. Cerilla? Atty. Lezama : I was of the impression that it was owned by complainant that's why the ejectment complaint filed speaks only of Luzviminda Cerilla but that was her claim because she said she paid for it.17
The MTC Judge also inquired about respondent's authority, and respondent replied, thus:
Court : The plaintiff is willing to sell the property? Atty. Lezama : Yes, if the defendant is willing to pay the amount of sale. Court : How much? Atty. Lezama : P100,000.00, although the record is more than that, your Honor. Court : They will also want to buy the property. You will sell it for P100,000.00? Atty. Lezama : I don't think, your Honor. Maybe it's P300,000.00. Court : P300,000.00. How much? Atty. Lezama : P350,000.00. x x x.18
The Investigating Commissioner stated that based on the foregoing, respondent acted beyond the scope of his authority. Respondent knew beforehand that no instruction was given by his client to sell the property, yet he bound his client to sell the property without her knowledge. Thus, he betrayed the trust of his client, complainant herein.
Court : Are you authorize[d] to make some suggestions to other matter, dismissal or other settlement? Do you have an authority? Atty. Lezama : Yes, your Honor, but I have some limitations. I think, your Honor, we need one more setting because I cannot agree on the proposal of the amount of the property your Honor.19
CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of their Canon 5 duty have been reiterated in Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla,27 thus:
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.28As found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent also violated Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Responsibility:
The Court sustains the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be penalized with suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client. 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.
Endnotes:
1 Administrative Case No. 10-2832, rollo, pp. 2-6.
2 Also spelled as "Favio" in another case.
3Rollo, p. 69.
4Id. at 15.
5Id. at 16.
6Id. at 17.
7Id. at 19.
8Id. at 21.
9Id. at 28.
10Id. at 30.
11Id. at 31-38.
12Id. at 40-46.
13Id. at 22-24.
14Id. at 190-196.
15 TSN, June 10, 2011; rollo, pp. 153-155.
16Rollo, pp. 51-52.
17 TSN, June 10, 2011, rollo, p. 176. (Emphasis ours)
18 TSN, January 31, 2005, rollo, pp. 85-86.
19Id. at 87-88.
20 CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
21 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.
22Rollo, p. 213.
23Id. at 211.
24Id. at 210.
25COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
The plaintiff and the defendant assisted by counsels have agreed to enter into a Compromise
Agreement as follows:IN WITNESS HEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this 31st day of January 2005, at Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, with a prayer that this agreement be approved and judgment be rendered in accordance therewith.
- The defendant recognizes the ownership and possession of the plaintiff of Lot No. 36 under TCT No. T-25416 subject of this case;
- The plaintiff is willing to sell this property in question to the defendant in the amount of P350,000 within a period of three months beginning February 1, 2005 up to April 30, 2005, the payment of which shall be paid in one setting;
- The defendant is willing to buy the said property in the said amount of P350,000 within the period required by the plaintiff;
- That in the event that the defendant cannot pay the amount stated within the specified period, the defendant will vacate the property in question without need of demand at the end of period required which is April 30, 2005; and
- That all other claims by both parties are deemed waived.
(Signed) LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA CARMELITA S. GARLITO Plaintiff Defendant Represented by: Assisted by: (Signed) (Signed) ATTY. SAMUEL SM. LEZAMA ATTY. BIENA MARIETA CABUSAO Attorney-In-Fact Counsel for Defendant (Rollo, p.15)
26Supra note 15.
27 688 Phil. 329 (2012).
28Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla, supra, at 336, citing Dulalia, Jr. v. Cruz, 550 Phil. 409, 420 (2007). (Underscoring supplied).