Nature and Procedural History
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Nelia P. de Chavez-Blanco against respondent Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr., for deceit, dishonesty, and gross misconduct. Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP initially found the respondent guilty and recommended the penalty of disbarment. The penalty was reduced to a five-year suspension by the IBP Board of Governors. The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case to the IBP as no formal hearing was conducted.
Case Facts
As alleged in the complaint, the complainant is a US resident who owns two adjacent parcels of land in Quezon City, which she authorized the respondent to sell through a special power of attorney.
On March 20, 1990, the respondent reported that he had sold only one lot for ₱320,000.00 and remitted the amount after deducting taxes and commissions.
In 1995, the respondent informed the complainant that the other remained unsold because of the presence of squatters on the property.
However, in December 1998, the complainant’s husband, Mario Blanco, discovered that the two lots had been sold in fact for the price of ₱1,120,00.00 and new titles were issued to the transferees.
In May 1999, Atty Muñoz sent a demand letter to the respondent to remit the entire proceeds of the sale. Respondent admitted the sale of properties and his receipt of its proceeds, but he never remitted the proceeds to the complainant.
The complainant also alleged that the Special Power of Attorney used by the respondent to sell the properties was falsified and that they could not have acknowledged the document before a notary as they were not in the Philippines at the time.
In his defense, he denied the accusations of deceit, dishonesty, and gross misconduct.
He alleged that the two lots were sold, but the payment for the other lot was withheld pending the relocation of the squatters who had been occupying the property.
He alleged that after collecting the proceeds of the second lot more than three years later, he obtained consent from Mario Blanco to utilize the amount for a real estate venture. However, the said venture did not push through.
He also maintained that the two lots had been sold for only ₱536,960.00, contrary to the amount claimed by the complainant.
He also argued that the complainant and his spouse had in fact signed the Special Power of Attorney but it was only notarized later.
Issues
- Were the two lots sold in fact for ₱1,120,00.00?
- Was the Special Power of Attorney falsified because the Blanco spouses were in the United States when it was issued?
- Does the gravity of Atty Lumasag’s actions qualify him for disbarment?
Ruling
The Court ruled that Atty Jaime Lumasag be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. The Court also ordered the respondent to deliver the remaining amount of ₱240,000.00 plus a legal interest rate of 6% per annum computed from March 1990.
Holdings
- The two lots were sold for ₱560,000.00.
- The claim for falsification is unsubstantiated.
- The penalty of suspension is sufficient to discipline the respondent
Reasonings
- The Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 11, 1990 shows that the lots had been sold for ₱560,000.00.
- The spouses were unable to present sufficient evidence to establish their absence from the country when the Special Power of Attorney was issued.
- The penalty of disbarment is meted out only on clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as on officer of the and member of the bar. Although the court does not hesitate to disbar an erring attorney, if evidence calls for it, the Court will also not disbar him if a lesser penalty will suffice.
References
A.C. No. 5195. (2009, April 6). The LawPhil Project. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/ac_5195_2009.html