Facts:
Spouses William Thomas Niles, an American citizen, and Marife Yukot Niles sought to formalize a loan agreement with Spouses Teodora and Jose Quirante. On April 25, 2011, they approached Atty. Casiano S. Retardo, Jr. to create the legal documents for the transaction. At the meeting, Retardo prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt and an undated Deed of Absolute Sale, with the property serving as collateral for the loan under the concept of dacion en pago.
The Quirantes failed to repay the loan, and on October 7, 2011, Retardo drafted a courtesy reminder for the Quirantes, enforcing the original agreement. By November 30, the Quirantes still had not paid; thus, Retardo prepared a final demand letter. On December 12, following the Quirantes’ default, Retardo notarized the deed of sale and instructed the Niles to proceed with property transfer arrangements.
Subsequently, the Quirantes filed a case against the Niles for the nullification of the sale and the title, resulting in a court decision that declared the transaction void due to a pactum commissorium provision (property transfer in lieu of payment). The Niles then sought to engage Retardo’s services, which he declined due to “potential conflict of interest.”
After the Quirantes won the civil case, the Niles initiated an administrative complaint against Retardo, accusing him of preparing illegal documents and representing conflicting interests.
Issues:
The primary legal issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether or not Atty. Casiano S. Retardo, Jr. can be held administratively liable for failing to apprise the parties of the legal implications of a pactum commissorium provision and for representing conflicting interests.
Court’s Decision:
The Court concluded that Retardo was indeed administratively liable for representing conflicting interests without proper disclosure, as the previous attorney-client relationship with the Quirante family should have been revealed. Furthermore, he was found to have prepared documents containing the prohibited pactum commissorium provision. Consequently, Retardo was suspended from the practice of law for six months and one day for the intentional violation of the conflict of interest rules, another six months and one day for ignorance of the law shown in bad faith, and his notarial commission was revoked with a two-year disqualification.
Doctrine:
The case expounded on the doctrine of avoiding conflicts of interest, clearly illustrating the attorney’s responsibility to disclose any potential conflict to all parties involved and to maintain allegiance to a client. It also reiterated the prohibition of the pactum commissorium provision under the Philippine Civil Code and the responsibilities of a lawyer as a notary public under the Notarial Rules.
Class Notes:
1. Conflict of Interest – A lawyer must not represent conflicting interests except by written informed consent of all concerned after full disclosure of the facts. (Canon III, Sections 13 and 17, CPRA)
2. Pactum Commissorium – This provision, allowing creditors to take ownership of collateral property without foreclosure, is prohibited. (Article 2088, Civil Code of the Philippines)
3. Notarial Duty – Notaries public must observe the law and due care in the performance of their duties. (Section 4(a), Rule IV, Notarial Rules)
4. Attorney-Client Relationship – An attorney must maintain loyalty and confidentiality even after the relationship has terminated. (Canon III, CPRA)
Historical Background:
This case re-emphasizes the importance of legal ethics in the practice of law in the Philippines, highlighting the professional conduct lawyers must uphold, especially in matters involving complex financial arrangements and property law. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to all legal practitioners to adhere strictly to ethical standards, notably in avoiding conflicts of interest and understanding legal prohibitions such as pactum commissorium. This contributes to ensuring the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Leave a Reply