FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13139. March 29, 2022.][Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5237]
EMILY M. AQUINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PORTIA F. DIESTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 29, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13139 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5237] (Emily M. Aquino v. Atty. Portia F. Diesta). — At the vortex of this disbarment case is the Verified Complaint1 filed by complainant Emily M. Aquino against respondent Atty. Portia F. Diesta for purportedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in gross violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
Sometime in November 2012, complainant and her husband negotiated to purchase a parcel of land owned by a certain Patricia Cariño. However, the sale was not consummated as the property was sold to another person. Thereupon, respondent's husband offered a lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-953 (subject realty) and located in Barangay Mascap, Montalban, Rizal. Complainant accepted respondent's offer without perusing the title of the realty; she merely relied on respondent's representations, who happened to be a lawyer. 2
The parties pegged the purchase price of the subject realty at Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), out of which complainant paid on 29 January 2013 the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) by way of down payment. The initial sum remitted to respondent was evidenced by an Acknowledgement Receipt 3 signed by Dolores D. Flores (Dolores), respondent's mother, indicating that Francisco D. Leyesa (Francisco), the deceased son of Dolores, was the registered owner of the subject realty. 4 The parties likewise agreed that the balance was to be paid every succeeding month at the rate of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
When complainant sought the connection of electricity for the realty sometime in April 2013, she learned that the subject lot was registered to Francisco, who was married to a certain Melissa Abesamis (Melissa). Nevertheless, complainant continued to pay the installments over respondent's assurance that Melissa was in the United States of America and would not run after her. The partial payments were covered by acknowledgment receipts which respondent signed without any qualification that the installment amounts were received by her for and on behalf of her mother. 5 As it happened, complainant was able to pay Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P280,000.00). 6
In due course, complainant discovered a notice of lis pendens on the title of the subject real estate and that the same was likewise encumbered in favor of the Land Bank of the Philippines. Perplexed, complainant tried to seek explanation and clarification from respondent and her mother, to no avail. All the same, complainant was still willing to pay the remaining balance of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) provided that respondent would tender the title to the purchased realty, to which respondent acceded. 7
Sometime in March 2014, complainant unearthed that a part of the subject realty was being sold to another person, impelling her to clarify the issue with respondent's husband. In turn, respondent's husband assured her that they had title to the realty. This notwithstanding, complainant was surprised to discover anew that the realty was already sold to one Alan Cruz (Alan), the City Engineer of Rodriguez, Rizal. Confronted by the complainant, respondent explained that pursuant to a deed of conditional sale, her payments were deemed to have been forfeited as rent and that the sale was considered null and void since the balance of P20,000.00 was not paid. Apparently, the deed, which was purportedly transmitted to complainant's driver, Ronald Regidor (Ronald), was not signed by her. 8
As complainant was being dispossessed of the subject realty, she inevitably filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline the subject Verified Complaint 9 for disbarment against the respondent. 10 Complainant brought to the fore the fact that respondent had already been administratively sanctioned by this Court in Administrative Matter No. P-05-1970 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1962-P) dated 30 May 2011. 11
Respondent denied any involvement in the negotiations with the complainant in relation to the said sale transaction. She avowed that she did not deceive complainant into purchasing the same, as she was well aware of the legal scuffle involving the title of the subject realty. Complainant was furnished a copy of the title of the realty and the acknowledgment receipt for the down payment therefor clearly indicated that it was registered under the name of Francisco. However, complainant was persistent in buying the property. Respondent likewise avouched that when she signed the acknowledgment receipts, she did so only on behalf of her mother. 12
The Investigating Commissioner 13 of the IBP submitted her Report and Recommendation 14 dated 27 November 2018 recommending the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year. While she did not mislead complainant into buying the real estate considering that the acknowledgment receipt of the down payment clearly indicated that the subject realty was covered by TCT No. EP-953 in the name of Francisco, her involvement in the negotiation of the transaction was sufficiently established. 15 So, too, respondent's act of invoking the terms of an unsigned and unnotarized deed of conditional sale to justify the forfeiture of complainant's payments exhibited respondent's lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. 16 Indeed, she failed to observe the highest degree of good faith, fairness, and candor. Her stunts manifested lack of good moral character expected from the members of the Bar. 17
On 15 February 2019, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Notice of Resolution 18 adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and imposing upon respondent the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of law. 19 Respondent's bid for reconsideration thereof was given short shrift in the Resolution 20 dated 8 August 2020.
After a percipient evaluation of the records, this Court resolves to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law, as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. 21
In line with the letter and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath, the Court has adopted and instituted the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) to govern every lawyer's relationship with his profession, the courts, the society, and his clients. 22
Rule 1.01 of the CPR states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. 23
From the foregoing, this Court agrees with the findings of the IBP that respondent participated in the negotiation of the sale transaction for which complainant suffered damage. Respondent herself admitted that she personally transmitted the deed of conditional sale to complainant through the latter's driver and even signed the acknowledgment receipts issued to complainant. Corollary thereto, respondent's act of justifying the forfeiture of the payments based on the unsigned and unnotarized deed was a clear demonstration of her lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor.
The Court cannot turn a blind eye to respondent's wrongful act of allowing irregular practices in the purchase of the subject realty. Veritably, she, along with her husband, she assured that complainant would acquire a valid title over the realty despite a clear knowledge of the legal implications of purchasing a property registered under the name of another person. Respondent likewise failed to notify complainant that the realty was already sold to another person.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. 24
The fact that respondent acted in her personal capacity does not blow a hole in finding her administratively liable. As officers of the courts and keepers of the public's faith, lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity. 25
In Sanidad v. Atty. Aguas, 26 the Court imposed the penalty of one year suspension upon Atty. Aguas for employing his knowledge and skill of the law to secure undue gains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others. Similarly, in Kare v. Atty. Tumaliuan, 27 the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Tumaliuan from the practice of law for a period of one year for violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Taking cue from the doctrinal pronouncement of this Court in Sanidad and Kare, the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law is fair and reasonable under the obtaining circumstances.
This Court likewise takes judicial notice that respondent has been found guilty and penalized in a previous administrative case. Her failure to meet the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing, should not be disregarded as it would run roughshod over the basic tenets embodied in the lawyer's oath. Thence, for the purpose of preserving and protecting the integrity of the legal profession and the public, she is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Portia F. Diesta is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR effective immediately with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Respondent Atty. Portia F. Diesta is DIRECTED to INFORM this Court of the date of her receipt of this Resolution for the purpose of reckoning the period of her penalty.
Finally, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant for the updating of the respective personal records as attorney of Atty. Portia F. Diesta; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for dissemination to all the courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-5.
2.See Verified Comment (To Motion for Reconsideration), Id., Vol. II, pp. 21-28.
3.Id.
4.See Report and Recommendation, Id., pp. 2-11.
5.Id.
6.Supra note 2.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Supra note 1.
10.Id., Vol. I, p. 146.
11.Id., Vol. I, at 3. In AM P-05-1970, respondent, the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 263, Pasig City, was charged with dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for not reporting for work on time, of collecting commissioner's fees for ex parte hearings, of not subjecting to raffle the publication of cases and judicial notices, and of illegally practicing law by appearing in court for his practitioner-father. She was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and simple misconduct and was fined the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
12.Id., Vol. II, p. 100.
13. Atty. Stephanie M. Cas-Refina.
14.Supra note 4.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.See Notice of Resolution, Id., Vol. II.
21.Jimeno Jr. v. Atty. Jimeno, A.C. No. 12012, 2 July 2018 citing Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, 753 Phil. 11, 19 (2014).
22.Jimeno Jr. v. Atty. Jimeno, supra, citing Apolinar-Petilo v. Maramot, A.C. No. 9067, 31 January 2018.
23. See Valin v. Atty. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564, 7 November 2017, citing Phil. Association of Court Employees v. Alibutdan-Diaz, 748 Phil. 321, 326 (2014).
24. See Lim v. Atty. Mejica, A.C. No. 11121, 13 September 2016 citing Belleza v. Atty. Macasa, 611 Phil. 179 (2009).
25. See Yap v. Atty. Buri, A.C. No. 11156, 19 March 2018 citing Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332, 339-340 (2014).
26. A.C. No. 9838, 10 June 2019 citing Guillen v. Atty. Arnado, A.C. No. 10547, 8 November 2017.
27. A.C. No. 8777, 9 October 2019.