1

A.C. No. 6882/December 24, 2008 MARISA BACATAN WILLIAMS and ORLANDO VERAR RIAN, JR., petitioners, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO ICAO, respondent. CARPIO MORALES, J.: Maria Bacatan Williams and Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. (petitioners) administratively charge Atty. Rodrigo Icao (respondent) for violation of the Notarial Law and for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct unbecoming of an attorney.1 In their Joint-Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment,2 petitioners allege that on May 23, 2002, respondent notarized a Declaration of Heirship and Partition3 (the document) making it appear that three of its signatories Lucia Briones, Ramon Verar, and Martin Umbac signed it in his presence when in truth they did not. In support of their allegation, they gave the following details, quoted verbatim: Proof that Attorney Icao was not present when the DECLARATION was actually signed came to light on June 3, 2003 during the trial in Criminal Case No. 3051 held at MCTC Bacong, Negros Oriental when, in his sworn testimony, Francisco B. Ventolero, one of the six signers, said that he was the one to carry the document from one signer to the next to get their signatures. x x x Additional support that the document was not signed in attendance with Attorney Icao is found where the participants declared they signed the document on 14 January 2002 in Bacong as opposed to the acknowledgment where Attorney Icao declares that they signed the document on 23 May 2002 in Dumaguete City. It is also apparent that Lucia Briones did not sign with Attorney Icao in attendance since her Community Tax Certificate was not recorded, nor was any notation made as to how she was identified. In addition, her printed signature (L. Briones) on page #2 is quite different from her written signature (Felicidad Briones) on page #1 and #3 suggesting further that the signing was not attended by Attorney Icao. In addition, it is commonly known amongst the participants that Lucia Briones lived in Cotabato for 20+ years before she died in 2004. It was equally known that she was deathly sick in 2002 which explains why Francisco B. Ventolero had to take the document to Cotabato for her signature. The style of the signatures of Francisco and Desiderio Ventolero also appear not to be under the guidance of a legal expert since the family name of "Ventolero" is used on page #2 while the family name of "Briones" is used on page #1 and #3. An attorney would never knowing[ly] allow such an inconsistency in a legal document. Bouncing back and forth from one family name to another and from a written signature on page #2 to thumbmarks on page #1 and #3 also seem to be highly irregular for a document supposedly signed in front of a lawyer.4 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners additionally charge respondent to have conspired with Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez (Atty. Enriquez), one of the signatories to, in the falsification, of the document.5 In his Comment,6 respondent, admitting that the document was not executed in his presence, claims that before he notarized it, the parties thereto appeared before him and he ascertained their identities as well as of those of their witnesses; that he explained to them the contents of the document which they acknowledged to be true and correct; that all the parties acknowledged before him that the signatures appearing thereon were theirs and that they executed the same freely and voluntarily; that he did not find in the document anything contrary to law, morals and public policy since at the time of the notarization, the signatories were accompanied by their counsel, Atty. Enriquez; that he did not require the presentation of other documents to support the document as he was not privy to its preparation; and that petitioners complaint had already prescribed under Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP under which a complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two years from the date of the professional misconduct. Respondent attached to his Comment a Joint Affidavit7 of Ramon Ventolero Verar, Martin Umbac, and Desiderio Briones Ventolero, who are among the signatories to the document, in which they attested to having appeared before respondent to acknowledge as theirs the signatures they had previously affixed thereon. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.8 While a mandatory conference/hearing was set on April 24, 2007,9 petitioners requested that the case be resolved on the basis of the parties position papers.10 In his Report and Recommendation,11 IBP Commissioner Edmund T. Espina (Espina), brushing aside respondents defense of prescription, citing Calo v. Degamo12 which held that disbarment proceedings do not prescribe, found respondent guilty of violation of the Notarial Law. Espina thereupon recommended that respondent be reprimanded, with warning that similar acts in the future would merit severe penalty. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution of December 14, 2007, resolved to dismiss the case, viz: RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.13 (Italics and emphasis in the original) Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,14 averring that: The Commission on Bar Discipline [sic] must have made an error by dismissing this case for "lack of merit" considering that Commissioner Espina stated on page #7 of his report and recommendation that, "The manner on which all the parties signed the document is highly irregular and questionable." Furthermore, on page #8 the Commissioner added, "Sad to say, respondent miserably failed to refute the allegations against him15 (Italics and underscoring in the original), which motion the IBP forwarded to the Court.

2
The Court finds for petitioners. On the technical issue of prescription, Frias v. Bautista-Lozada,16 holds that that prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. x x x As early as 1967, we have held that the defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos,17 we declared that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe. xxxx The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative proceedings against lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBDIBP should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by this Court. Regrettably, Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of this Corut. It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.18 On the merits. The document does not bear the residence certificate number of Lucia Briones, one of the signatories. In notarizing it without recording Lucias residence certificate, respondent violated the Notarial Law then effective19 which required the notary public to certify that a party to the instrument which was acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place and date of issue as part of the certification.20 This formality is mandatory and cannot be neglected, failure to comply with which results in the revocation of a notarys commission.21 By respondents admission, the signatories to the document did not personally sign it in his presence. He, however, claims that they appeared before him and confirmed their identities and acknowledged that the signatures appearing thereon were theirs. If indeed the heirssignatories and their witnesses had personally appeared before respondent, it is beyond comprehension why he did not ask them to affix their signatures in his presence. By such omission, he failed to heed his duty as a notary public to demand that the document for notarization be signed in his presence.22 More. The document contained false statements. Thus, it listed the signatories counsel, Atty. Enriquez, as one of the six heirs of Aurea Briones, albeit he is merely the legal counsel of the heirs.23 The Joint Affidavit respondent attached to his Comment stating that there were five, not six, heirs should have readily alerted him of such falsity. Still more. The document states that Aurea Briones Ventolero died ab intestato during the Second World War. The death certificate of the deceased on file at the Civil Registry states, however, that she died on July 12, 1998.24 And the document states that the six signatories are heirs of Aurea Briones, whereas in the Joint Affidavit attached to respondents Comment, the three signatories-affiants claim that they are, as well as of the deceased Aurea Briones husband Ciriaco Ventolero, heirs of Aurea Briones. Records show that Atty. Enriquez had in fact been previously suspended from the practice of law for two years for his complicity in executing the same document.25 In notarizing a document containing false statements, respondent failed to discharge his duty to inform himself of the facts to which he intended to certify and to take part in no illegal enterprise.26 It bears recalling that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.27 It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public.28 As a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, lest the confidence of the public in the integrity of the document will be undermined.29 No concrete evidence being appreciated from the records in support of the charge of complicity in the falsification of the document, the same must fail. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Atty. Rodrigo Icao is SUSPENDED from the practice of law and from his commission as a notary public for a period of one year, effective immediately, with warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7027/January 30, 2009

3
TANU REDDI, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR., Respondent. Tanu Reddi (complainant), an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing endodontist in New York, seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. (respondent) for allegedly deceiving her into giving him a total of US$ 3,000,000 for the purpose of, among other things, purchasing several real estate properties for resale. From the records of the case, the following facts are gathered: Taking after her parents who had been involved in various charitable activities in India, complainant nurtured philanthropic desires of her own consisting primarily in opening a hospital with modern facilities in an underdeveloped part of Asia.1 Together with Immaculada Luistro (Immaculada), a Filipino citizen,2 who was her assistant of over 10 years, complainant visited the Philippines for the first time in 2000. Noting the level of poverty in the country and the lack of medical services for the poor,3 she decided to put up a hospital.4 Immaculada suggested to complainant to consider engaging in the real estate business in the Philippines in order to speed up the generation of funds.5 Heeding the suggestion, complainant returned to the Philippines in 2003 to explore opportunities in the real estate business.6 Complainant was introduced to respondent who would help her acquire real properties for development and/or resale. Since she could not acquire ownership of lands in the Philippines, respondent advised her to use corporate vehicles to effect the purchases. Three corporations were thus formed Tagaytay Twins, Inc., Manila Chic Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc.7 By complainants account, respondent cajoled her into buying several parcels of land located at Tagaytay City, Las Pias City, Makati City, Quezon City, and Pasay City. She related the details surrounding the intended acquisition of property as follows: Re the Tagaytay City Property Respondent represented to complainant that his client Teresita Monzon (Teresita) owned an untitled 27-hectare property located at Tagaytay City. Through the Tagaytay Twins, Inc., complainant and Teresita executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated March 21, 2003 (Tagaytay MOA)8 prepared by respondent under which she agreed to finance the titling of the property in the total amount of P20,000,000, and that once titled, the property would be offered for sale, the proceeds of which would be divided equally between her and Teresita. Complainant thereupon made staggered payments of US$1,000, P2,000,000, and US$36,360 to Teresita.9 Complainant was later to discover that 996 square meters of the 27-hectare property had been purchased by Aldio Properties, Inc. in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, which sale Teresita challenged in an action for annulment before the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City. In said action, respondent was Teresitas counsel of record.10 Re the Las Pias City Property Respondent offered to complainant the option to purchase a house and lot located at Las Pias City, which were encumbered by a mortgage, and which respondent represented as owned and being sold by one Francisca Parales (Francisca)11 to finance an urgently needed heart surgery of her daughter.12 On respondents advice, complainant obtained a franchise to operate a Jollibee food outlet, with the agreement that out of the profits that its operation would generate, she would get 50% while respondent and Immaculada would share the remaining 50%.13 Complainant thus sent respondent sums of money for the acquisition of both the Las Pias property and a franchise to operate a Jollibee outlet.14 Re the Makati City Property Respondent introduced complainant to a certain Mario C. Mangco (Mangco), alleged legal officer of the intestate estate of one Faustino Ramos (Ramos), which estate was alleged to be the owner of a real property located at the consular area adjacent to Forbes Park in Makati City.15 Complainant having been interested in acquiring the property, respondent prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (Makati MOA) which she, together with Mangco, forged on March 20, 2004.16 Under the Makati MOA, complainant agreed to, as she did, release P10,000,000 representing the cost of development and titling of the property, and payment of back taxes; and an additional P2,000,000 for the execution of the Makati MOA. Complainant was later to learn that the property was neither owned by the intestate estate of Ramos nor for sale. Re the Quezon City Property Respondent broached to complainant the idea of buying the land on which SM North Mall in Quezon City stands, he representing that it belongs to his client, purportedly a retired US Navy employee who resides in Mindanao.17 Complainant assented and transmitted large sums of money to respondent for the purpose of, among other things, filing a petition for injunction against SM North Mall, paying back taxes, and titling of the land.18 Re the Pasay City Property Complainant sent respondent hefty amounts of money for the purchase of a vacant lot located along Roxas Boulevard in Pasay City, alleged to belong to Florenda Estrada (Florenda) and Alma Mallari (Alma), but which was mortgaged to one Atty. Go to secure a loan of P5,000,000.19 She also defrayed expenses, on the strength of respondents representations, to secure title to the lot, settle the mortgage obligation, relocate squatters on the lot, and bribe a judge to "close the transaction."20 Complainant subsequently discovered that there was no such vacant lot along Roxas Boulevard in Pasay City; instead, she found out that the "vacant lot" referred to was titled in the names of Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) and Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO).21

4
In light of the foregoing developments, complainants counsel, by letter dated December 19, 2005,22 demanded from respondent the return of the amount of US$3,000,000, claimed to be part of the total sum of money she had sent to him for all the transactions that did not come about. No amount has been returned to complainant. Hence, spawned the filing on January 27, 200623 of the present complaint for disbarment against respondent. By his Comment, respondent admits receiving a total of US$544,828 from complainant24 which amount he claims was used not only for the purchase of the Las Pias property and discharge of the mortgage thereon, but also for the setting up of the earlier mentioned corporations, as well as for the downpayment on the Makati property and related expenses.25 Respondent likewise admits having represented to complainant that the Las Pias City property belonged to one Francisca,26 certificate of title to which and the corresponding deed of sale signed by Francisca, by his claim, are in his possession; but the title has not been transferred to Tanu, Inc., as agreed, in view of complainants failure to provide the money needed therefor, he adding that he is also exercising his retaining lien over the Las Pias documents.27 Specifically with respect to the Makati property, respondent claims having paid P500,000 to Mangco representing initial payment28 thereof. Regarding the Tagaytay City property, respondent admits that the Tagaytay MOA exists, and avers that it is complainant who wants to get out of a perfected sale in order to recover her partial payment amounting to approximately P4,000,000.29 With respect to the Quezon City property, respondent states that he is willing to surrender all the documents pertaining thereto, but would do so only if complainant is first ordered to pay him his professional fees.30 As for the Pasay City property, respondent denies complainants claims thereon as mere "preposterous allegations." Following the filing by complainant of her Reply, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation/decision by Resolution of January 22, 2007.31 At the mandatory conference scheduled by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on September 13, 2007 before Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing (the Commissioner),32 respondent failed to appear despite notice. He instead sent a representative who sought a resetting as, allegedly, respondent was in Ilocos attending to an important family matter.33 The Commissioner, finding respondents absence inexcusable, given that he had ample time to file a motion for resetting but he did not, considered respondent to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings.34 Complainant thereupon presented evidence ex-parte and submitted her position paper.35 In her Report and Recommendation36 submitted to the IBP Board of Governors on December 14, 2007, the Commissioner found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the lawyers oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), viz: 1. Respondent violated CANON 1 which states: "A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes." Respondent committed estafa punishable under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. With unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, he misappropriated millions of pesos which was [sic] given to him on his misrepresentation that such were needed for the acquisition of the aforementioned properties. Respondent also committed an unlawful act (i.e., falsification as part of his fraudulent scheme) when he tampered with the Articles of Incorporation of Tanu, Inc.. A perusal of the Articles of Incorporation given by respondent to complainant shows that the incorporators are Tanu Reddi, Michael Lee, Prasuna Reddy, Ahalya Devi, and Robert Juntilla. When complainant obtained a copy of the same in September 2005, she discovered that other names were inserted. The names of respondent, Clarito D. Cardozo, Brian Pellazar, and Michael Angelo Lopez were intercalated. (Exhibit "W") 2. He likewise violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof. This is very clear from the documents he asked complainant to sign; namely, the Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit "D") for the Tagaytay property, Deed of Conditional Sale (Exhibit "U") for the Pasay City property, and Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit "M") for the Makati City property. The certificates of title, tax declaration and other documents obtained by complainant from the various government agencies reveal that all these properties aforementioned were either fictitious, not susceptible to sale, simulated, or inexistent. 3. Respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR which state: "CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client." He failed to account for the sums of money he received from complainant and failed to return the same upon demand. (Copy of demand letter dated 19 December 2005, Exhibit "T") 4. Respondent violated Rule 15.06 of the CPR which provides: "A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body."

5
He convinced complainant to pay bribe money to our judges since, he claims, that it is a common practice in the Philippines.37 (Underscoring supplied) The Commissioner thus recommended that respondent be disbarred; that his name be ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys; and that he be ordered to return the total amount of US$3,000,000 to complainant. By Resolution of January 17, 2008,38 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Commissioner, with the modification that respondent was ordered to return only the admitted amount he received from complainant (US$544,828), without prejudice to complainants recovery of the other amounts claimed in the appropriate forum. The Court sustains the IBP Board of Governors, except its findings/conclusion that respondent committed estafa and falsification. This is not the proper forum to determine whether he committed these offenses. The Court finds, however, that respondents dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect to the intended transactions, real property acquisitions which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established. It bears emphasis that respondent admits having received from complainant at least US$544,828. He claims, however, that the amount was used for the purchase of the Las Pias property and the discharge of the mortgage thereon, the setting up of the corporations earlier mentioned, and the downpayment on the Makati property and related representation expenses therefor. The Court finds that the claim does not lie. All that respondent presented to account for the money is a handwritten acknowledgment of a supposed partial payment of P500,000 for the Makati property, purportedly executed by one Mangco.39 By any standard, this document is a mere piece of paper, Mangco not having been presented, if he exists at all, to confirm that he indeed issued the receipt. Since respondent failed to credibly account, upon demand, for the money held by him in trust an element of misappropriation40 complainants claim that respondent employed deceit on her is established. Respondents culpability is further highlighted by his utter lack of regard for the seriousness of the charges against him. His defenses raised in his Comment consist mainly in bare denials. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.41 He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him.42 This, respondent miserably failed to do. Respondents justification for his non-presentation of any documents to substantiate the socalled property acquisitions that he is exercising his retaining lien over them as, allegedly, his professional fees have not been paid is incredible. If those documents actually exist, and considering that his license to practice law is on the line, respondent could have readily attached even photocopies thereof to his Comment in order to lend a semblance of credibility to his claim. His "retaining lien" claim remains just that. Worse, it only amounts to an admission that he acted as counsel for complainant; yet, he completely failed to show that in his dealings on her behalf, he put her interests before his. As to the recommended penalty of disbarment, the Court finds the same to be in order. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x. To reiterate, by his own admission, respondent received a total of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not properly account for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking advantage of complainants naivete in the workings of the real estate business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way short of the exacting standards required of him as a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit to remain as such. The Court is mindful that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, and only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.43 If the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.44 The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.45 The Court also sustains the order of the IBP for respondent to return only the amount of US$544,828. While complainant submitted documents showing her bank remittances involving different sums of money, some of these remittances were not made in the name of respondent.46 And as complainant herself declares, the amount of US$3,000,000 is a mere estimate of her total claim.47 Thus, only the return of the admitted amount of US$544,828 is in order. As reflected above, complainant is not precluded from litigating her claim for any balance due her in the proper forum. WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED TO RETURN to complainant the amount of US$544,828. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his record as a member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. SO ORDERED.

6
A.C. No. 7861/ January 30, 2009/ (CBD Case No. 06-1829) WILHELMINA C. VIRGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. OLIVER V. AMORIN, Respondent. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before the Court is a Petition filed by Atty. Oliver V. Amorin (Atty. Amorin) seeking the reversal of the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors dated February 6, 2008, suspending him from the practice of law for one year. Wilhelmina Virgo (complainant) filed with the IBP a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Amorin dated September 11, 2006 before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD), alleging, as follows: She and her husband (collectively referred to as "Virgos") owned a house in Loyola Grand Villas (the Virgo Mansion) situated on two lots1 which Atty. Amorin offered to buy in 1996. They agreed at the price of P45,000,000.00 (P45M) with the Virgos retaining the certificates of title so that Atty. Amorin could borrow from banks using the name of complainant who had a good credit standing. Atty. Amorin was kind and accommodating and offered to be complainant's legal consultant on several occasions free of charge. Complainant fully trusted Atty. Amorin, and the latter prepared Deeds of Sale bearing different amounts which the Virgos signed. Of the P45M price, however, Atty. Amorin only paid P20M, P10M of which came from loans made by complainant using the property as collateral. In April 1998, Atty. Amorin issued three checks2 to cover the balance of P25M, which checks, however, were dishonored because the payments were stopped or had insufficient funds. Atty. Amorin also intentionally altered his signature on the checks. Complainant made several demands on Atty. Amorin to no avail; thus, she filed estafa and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 cases against him on February 1, 2002.3 Atty. Amorin in turn filed one civil4 and nine criminal cases5 against complainant which damaged her good business reputation and credit standing.6 Atty. Amorin filed an Answer7 denying the charges against him and claiming that complainant only filed the complaint against him because of the reversals in complainant's court cases against him. He also asserts that assuming that the accusations of complainant are true, such are not grounds for disbarment, not being related to his professional conduct but at most are merely bases for civil action, in this case Civil Case No. Q-01-45798 pending before Branch 221, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City (RTC-QC).8 Atty. Amorin avers: The property was not sold to him personally but to Loveland Estate Developers, Inc. (LEDI) of which he is the President. Complainant did not mention in her complaint that the property is involved in three other cases: (1) Civil Case No. Q-01-457989 pending before RTC-QC Branch 221, (2) LRC Case No. Q-15382 (02)10 before RTC-QC Branch 216, and (3) CA-GR SP No. 7798611 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA-GR SP No. 77986, the CA found that the Virgos, in bad faith, received P12M from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) after having been already paid by him. The Virgos no longer own the property, as they have already sold the same to LEDI through the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage for the lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 25894, the Deed of Absolute Sale for the lot covered by TCT No. 26376 and the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage which consolidates the two previous deeds of sale. It is not true that they agreed on the price of P45M, as shown by a copy of the affidavit of Antonio Virgo, complainant's husband, and the receipts for the commissions of complainant's real estate broker. The truth is that as early as 1994, the property was being sold for P20M, but there were no buyers so complainant lowered the price to P15M, of which P10M was paid by him with a Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC) Check12 dated May 28, 1996; the amount of P2M with FEBTC Check13 dated June 3, 1996; and for the balance, by assuming complainant's loan from FEBTC for P3million.14 Atty. Amorin further alleges: He and complainant used to have cordial relations, but he never offered her legal services. He gave complainant the deeds of sale so she could have them notarized and have the assumption of loan approved by FEBTC. Said loan, which complainant obtained without his knowledge and consent and using the house and lots as collateral, was for her own benefit and this was the transaction which the CA condemned. It is also not true that he paid complainant P25million in April 1998 with three checks. Complainant stole 3 blank checks from him and forged the same which was his basis for filing falsification and perjury cases against complainant. He did not file said cases in order to threaten her, as he filed them earlier than IS No. 02-1551 -- the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case which complainant filed against him.15 A Mandatory Conference was held before the IBP Investigating Commissioner on March 16, 2007, and both parties and their respective counsels appeared.16 Thereafter, the parties submitted their position papers reiterating their arguments. In her Position Paper, complainant asserts that the attorney-client relationship that existed between her and Atty. Amorin are shown by the letters of Atty. Amorin to her, one of which clearly states that Atty. Amorin has given her and her husband legal services and consultations for free.17 Atty. Amorin in his Memorandum meanwhile insists that there is no lawyer-client relationship between them, since there was no specific case or transaction in which represented her or gave her professional advice.18 Complainant filed a Reply arguing that the fact that the legal advice given by Atty. Amorin was for free is immaterial, since lawyering does not confine itself to actually handling a case, but includes giving legal advice through consultations.19 Complainant also filed a Supplement to Reply to Respondent's Memorandum pointing out that CA-GR SP No. 77986 repeatedly referred to by Atty. Amorin does not include her as a party; thus, she was not given any opportunity to explain her side.20 Atty. Salvador B. Hababag, Commissioner of the IBP-CBD, submitted his Report dated January 7, 2008 finding Atty. Amorin guilty of misconduct and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for six months. Commissioner Hababag found that: Atty. Amorin used his legal knowledge and training to induce complainant to part with her property; Atty. Amorin admitted preparing three deeds of sale, but denies the existence of a fourth one which complainant claims to embody their real intent as to the purchase price; this was Atty. Amorin's scheme to defraud not only complainant but also the government of its taxes from the sale; Atty. Amorin failed to fulfill his promise to pay the purchase price in cash and to pay the P25million balance, issuing three postdated checks which were dishonored, however, due to insufficient funds; Atty. Amorin also intentionally altered his signature on the checks and when complainant tried to collect the

7
balance, Atty. Amorin filed several cases to harass her; Atty. Amorin violated Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" and Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which states "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct"; finally, complainant was not a party to CA-GR SP No. 77986; thus, she was not able to defend herself and introduce evidence on her behalf.21 On February 6, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-200877, CBD Case No. 06-1829, to wit: Wilhelmina C. Virgo vs. Atty. Oliver V. Amorin RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, considering Respondent's violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Canons of Responsibility when he used his legal knowledge and training to induce complainant to part with her property and eventually defraud her in the process, Atty. Oliver V. Amorin is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.22 Atty. Amorin is now before the Court assailing the IBP Resolution, raising the main issue: whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of [Complainant] that [Atty. Amorin] violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility when he used his legal knowledge and training to induce [complainant] to part with her property and eventually, defraud her in the process and two sub-issues: whether or not the Decision dated September 7, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 77986 Loveland Estate Developers, Inc. etc. vs. Hon. Ofelia Arelano Marquez, et al. can serve as evidence against [complainant]; and whether or not public respondent (Board of Governors, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline) can legally decide the complaint of (Virgo) based on alleged facts which are the subject of Civil Case No. Q-01-45798, Loveland Estate Developers, Inc. vs. BPI Leasing and Finance Corporation, Ricky Sunio, Fred Galang, Danilo T. Reyes, Antonio L. Virgo, Wilhelmina Virgo and the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, still pending before Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City. Atty. Amorin argues that: the IBP Commissioner's Report which the IBP Board of Governors adopted is based solely on the pleadings and documents of complainant which are self-serving and unsupported by official documents; the findings of fact of the IBP crumble when arrayed against the CA Decision dated September 7, 2004 in CA-GR SP No. 77986 which found complainant to have acted in bad faith; his evidence, consisting primarily of the CA Decision in CA-GR SP No. 77986 and the sworn statement of complainant's own husband show the opposite of the IBP's findings of facts, i.e., it was complainant who committed fraud and deceit against him; both documents show that complainant used the property which she already sold to him, as collateral for a new loan of P12M from the BPI; the Counter-Affidavit of Antonio Virgo, as one of the respondents in IS No. 17683, an Estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case, stated that he and his wife sold the Virgo Mansion to Atty. Amorin for P15M to be paid with FEBTC checks and the assumption of the balance of the complainant's loan with FEBTC; although complainant is not a respondent in CA-GR SP No. 77986, said case is admissible as evidence against her, since the CA case was derived from two other cases in the RTC; Civil Case No. Q-01-45798 and LRC Case No. Q-1538 (02); complainant is a private respondent in Civil Case No. Q-01-45798 pending before Branch 221 of RTC-QC. Atty. Amorin also argues that the facts which are used by the IBP as the basis for placing Atty. Amorin under suspension from the practice of law for one year are the facts in litis in said case; thus, it is premature and improper for the IBP to render the herein assailed Resolution, as it will preempt the findings and decision that the RTC will render in the civil case.1avvphi1.net Complainant filed her Comment reiterating her arguments before the IBP and adding that her husband's affidavit, which is being invoked by Atty. Amorin in his Petition, cannot be considered as impartial since she and her husband have not been in good terms after she filed a criminal case for concubinage against him, for which he was found guilty by the trial court. The Court finds the petition to be with merit. First, the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Atty. Amorin and complainant was not established. An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces or voluntarily permits the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have employed the lawyer on any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received in matters pertinent to his profession.23 There are instances, however, when the Court finds that no attorney-client relationship exists between the parties, such as when the relationship stemmed from a personal transaction between them rather than the practice of law of respondent or when the legal acts done were only incidental to their personal transaction.24 In trying to prove that there exists an attorney-client relationship between them, complainant attached to her Position Paper four letters and a Memorandum of Agreement drafted by and sent to them by Atty. Amorin. As to the first letter dated October 14, 1998, complainant argues that the part in the letter which states: As to why you did this to us (Amorins), inspite of all the favors my wife and I have given you, the free legal services and consultations granted you without any consideration or expectation of any renumeration.25

8
should be considered as proof that there exists an attorney-client relationship between them. Reading the letter in its entirety, especially the preceding paragraph, to wit: Incidentally, we have been informed by our bank, United Coconut Planters Bank, Diliman Branch, to the effect that you attempted to encash three (3) checks allegedly issued to me. They did not honor the three checks in the total amount of TWENTY FIVE MILLION PESOS (P25,000,000.00) as the signature appearing therein was not my own signature. As to why this happened is beyond my comprehension, knowing as you do that we do not have any obligation with you. On the contrary, you are the one who owe us TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND PESOS, which we previously encash but the two checks bounced. would show however that Atty. Amorin was confronting complainant about her act of using the subject property as a collateral for a P12M loan from the FEBTC when she and her husband had already sold the property to LEDI. Rather than confirming any attorney-client relationship between them, the said paragraph, if read in its full context, actually conveys Atty. Amorin's frustration over what he felt was an act of betrayal on complainant's part despite the free legal services and consultations he had extended to complainant without any consideration or expectation of any remuneration. Read in this light, the Court cannot appreciate such statement as proof that an attorney-client relationship existed between them. Complainant also attached other letters sent by respondent, dated July 6, 1999,26 December 17, 199927 and an undated one,28 plus a draft Memorandum of Agreement,29 which talk about the complainant's property in Tanay, its excavation for possible hidden treasure, their supposed sharing in the expenses and Atty. Amorin's interest in buying the said property. Rather than bolstering complainant's claim that there exists an attorney-client relationship between them, such letters actually strengthen the idea that the relationship of complainant and Atty. Amorin is mainly personal or business in nature, and that whatever legal services may have been rendered or given to them by Atty. Amorin for free were only incidental to said relationship. Noteworthy also is the fact that complainant was not able to specify any act or transaction in which Atty. Amorin acted as her or her husband's counsel. Second, Atty. Amorin has pointed out and complainant does not deny, the existence of other cases related to the present disbarment case. Civil Case No. 01-45798, pending before RTCQC Branch 221, a case for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage and Foreclosure Proceedings with Damages, Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and Preliminary Attachment, filed by LEDI against BPI Leasing and Finance Corp., its officers, the Registrar of Quezon City and the Virgos, assail the foreclosure by BPI of the Virgo Mansion which LEDI claims to have already been sold by the Virgos to them. In claiming ownership of the property, LEDI necessarily has to raise factual matters pertaining to the sale by the Virgos of the property to them, such as the actual selling price, the validity of the deeds of sale, and the terms of payment, which are inextricably intertwined with the present disbarment case.30 LRC Case No. Q-15382 (02), a petition for the issuance of writ of possession filed by the BPI before RTC QC Br. 216 seeks to foreclose the Virgo Mansion, which complainant and her husband mortgaged to BPI in 1998,31 while CA-GR SP. No. 77986 is a petition for certiorari While it is true that disbarment proceedings look into the worthiness of a respondent to remain as a member of the bar, and need not delve into the merits of a related case, the Court, in this instance, however, cannot ascertain whether Atty. Amorin indeed committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the Virgo Mansion without going through the factual matters that are subject of the aforementioned civil cases, particularly Civil Case No. 01-45798. As a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusions that will be drawn by the court where the case is pending, the Court deems it wise to dismiss the present case without prejudice to the filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of the civil case. WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-77 dated February 6, 2008 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the administrative case filed against Atty. Oliver V. Amorin docketed as A.C. No. 7861 is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. and prohibition asking the CA to stop the judge therein from enforcing the writ of possession issued pursuant to LRC Case No. Q-15382.32