Saladaga v Astorga

A.C. No. 4697. November 25, 2014

Legal Ethics; Canon 1; Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Facts:

Complainant Saldaga and respondent Atty. Astorga entered into a deed of sale with right to repurchase on December 2, 1981. Atty. Astorga sold to the complainant a parcel of coconut land located in Baybay, Leyte for 15,000.00. Under the deed, Saldaga represented that it has “the perfect right to dispose as owner in fee simple” the subject property, and that the property is “free from all liens and encumbrances”. The deed also provided that Atty. Astorga, as vendor a retro, had two years within which to repurchase the property, and if not repurchased, “the parties shall renew the instrument or agreement”. 

Atty. Astorga failed to exercise his right to repurchase within the period stipulated in the deed, and no renewal of contract was made when Saldaga made a final demand. Saldaga remained in peaceful possession of the property until December 1989, he received letters from Rural Bank of Albuera  (Leyte) informing him that the property is mortgaged by Atty. Astorga to it. That the bank had foreclosed the property and Saldaga should vacate the property.

Saldaga was dispossessed of the property, so it filed a case of estafa against the respondent.  The complainant likewise instituted an administrative case which was then referred to the IBP for  investigation, report  and  recommendation, where it found Atty. Astorga guilty of Bad Faith when he dealt with Saldaga misrepresenting him that the property was covered with TCT No. T-662 when the said TCT was  already  cancelled  earlier  and  transferred  to  her  wife’s  name  without  informing  Saldaga. It likewise held that Atty. Astorga shall be suspended from the practice of law for two years and ordered to return the sum of 15,000 with interest. 

Issue:

WoN the investigating commissioner correctly ruled that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and pay the corresponding amount.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled on the affirmative because when Atty. Astorga was admitted to the legal profession, he took an oath to obey the laws, do no falsehood and uphold the constitution, as well as to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. This, in which he gravely violated his oath, when it caused the ambiguity or vagueness in the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase as he was the one who drafted or prepared such document. Respondent could have simply denominated the instrument as a deed of mortgage and refer himself and the complainant as “mortgagor” and “mortgagee”, rather than “vendor a retro” and “vendee a retro”, then the controversy could have been avoided. His imprecise and misleading wording of the said deed on its face betrayed the lack of legal competence on his part. He thereby fell short of his oath, to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. 

Indeed. respondent had the right to mortgage the property but as a lawyer, he should have seen to it that the agreement faithfully, clearly and expressly embody or reflect the intention of the parties. Otherwise, it will open the door to legal disputes which in the case at bar was caused by respondent’s poor formulation of the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase”. Which played a significant factor in the controversy.

            Likewise, the respondent dealt with the complainant with Bad Faith, Deceit and Fraud when he made it appear that property was covered with TCT-662 when it was in fact cancelled nine years earlier. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: 

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

          Under Canon 1, a lawyer is not only mandated to personally obey the laws and the legal processes, he is moreover expected to inspire respect and obedience thereto. On the other hand, Rule 1.01 states the norm of conduct that is expected of all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is “unlawful.”  “Unlawful” conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element. The actions of respondent in connection with the execution of the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” clearly fall within the concept of unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. They also reflect bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit on respondent’s part. 

Thus, respondent deserves to be sanctioned.