MARIO HERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. SERGIO VILLAREAL, RESPONDENT.

This disbarment case was filed against Atty. Sergio Villareal of 927 Shuler St.,
Mandaluyong, Rizal and
holding office at Rm. 511, Madrigal Bldg., Escolta, Manila
by Mario Hernandez of Bo. Bangkal, Meycauayan, Bulacan.

In his complaint^[1]
the complainant alleges, among others:

“3.  That the services
of Respondent were hired by herein Complainant on August 20, 1974, in connection with the recovery of
possession of a piece of land covered by TCT No. T-202322 of the Registry of
Deeds of Bulacan, and in connection therewith
Complainant was made to sign a Power of Attorney by Respondent in his favor;

“4.  That Respondent was able
to sell the said piece of land and received payment of the same from RANULFO
DAVID for P120,000,00 but the Deed of Sale signed by Respondent states that the
land was sold for P90,000.00;

“5.  That on April 18, 1975, Subject gave
Complainant P15,000.00 as part of the payment of the land, but he was made to
sign a receipt in the amount of P20,000.00;

“6.  That Respondent failed
and still fails to deliver the balance of the price of the said piece of land to
Complainant despite repeated demands;

“7.  That sometime in
September 24, 1975, Respondent delivered to Complainant three (3) Bank of the
Philippine Islands, Makati (Quad) Branch Checks
through Atty. LUIS CUVIN amounting to P52,000.00 drawn against the account of
one AURORA C. DEAÑO in favor of Complainant;

“8.  That the aforementioned
checks were dishonored for the reason that they were drawn against a closed
account;”

x x x                          x x x                             x
x x

In his answer^[2]
the respondent denied the material allegations of the complaint and prayed for
its dismissal.

The case was, thereafter, referred to the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation.^[3]

Subsequently, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss^[4]
the complaint alleging:

“Upon a less emotional confrontation of the parties herein and
a more thorough and impartial review and evaluation of the sequence of events
which transpired between them in their relationship as client and counsel, the
complainant is now convinced beyond any doubt and so confirms that, consonant
to their agreement as affirmed in his letter of 28 October 1974, copy of which
is attached hereto as part hereof and marked Annex ‘A’, he is entitled to the
sum of only Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred (P67,500.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency, as his net share, interest and participation in and out of the
proceeds of the disposal of the land involved, which sum was pre-computed and
ascertained at 75% of and on the basis of the pre-fixed price or consideration
of P90,000.00, regardless of the actual amount of the price or consideration of
such disposal, whether it be more or less than P90,000.00; that it is entirely
none of his concern what methods, procedures and expenses the prospective
buyer-whosoever he or it may be – may in fact adopt, pursue and/or incur in
raising the price or consideration of sale or disposal; That, having already received
a part payment of P15,000.00 against said P67,500.00, the only balance due to
the complainant is P52,500.00; that the disagreement between the parties here
really emanates from the demand of the complainant upon the respondent to pay
on the basis of 75% of P120,000.00 and the refusal of the latter to pay on said
basis; that there is thus no conversion or misappropriation, nor intent to convert
or misappropriate on the part of respondent; that the parties herein have
consequently arrived at a mutually satisfactory mode of settlement of their
dispute and the liquidation of the subject account; that a dismissal of the
case at bar is so desired, and in order.”

In his report and recommendation,^[5]
the Solicitor General states:

“Before resolving the motion to dismiss, an investigation of
both complainant-movant and respondent Atty. Sergio Villareal was conducted.

“Complainant-movant testified under
oath:

“That he caused the filing of the complaing
against Atty. Sergio Villareal; that the complaint
arose from an oral agreement entered on August 20, 1974 between him (Mario
Hernandez) and Atty. Sergio Villareal regarding the
sale of a parcel of land owned by the former; that as per said agreement, Atty.
Sergio Villareal was to sell said parcel of land for
P90,000.00; that the terms of the sale, whether on cash or installment basis,
was left to the sound discretion of Atty. Villareal;
that there was no condition attached to their agreement as to the time within
which Atty. Sergio Villareal was to deliver to Mario
Hernandez the proceeds of the sale; that as per the oral agreement, Atty. Villareal was to receive 25% of the proceeds of the sale of
P90,000.00; that in the event the land was sold for an amount in excess of
P90,000.00 there was no agreement as to whom the said excess amount should go;
that on April 18, 1975, he (Mario Hernandez) inquired from Atty. Sergio Villareal whether or not the land was already sold; that on
he same occasion, he was given P15,000.00 by Atty. Villareal,
which amount represented part of the proceeds of the sale of the land; that on
that occasion, April 18, 1975, Atty. Villareal did
not tell him (Mario Hernandez) that subject parcel of land was sold way back in
1974; that he came to know that the land was already fully paid only about the
latter part of July, 1975 as per information received from Mr. David, the
vendee of subject land; that after April 18, 1975 when the amount of P15,000.00
was delivered to him, and before the institution of this administrative case,
no other amount representing the proceeds of the sale was given to him by Atty.
Villa­real; that it was only in July, 1975 that he
came to know that the vendee of subject land paid Atty. Villareal on different
occasions; check for P5,000.00 in October 1974; check for P20,000.00 on March
15, 1975; check for P20,000.00 with notation “cancelled replaced by
cash” and check for P30,000 with notation “cancelled replaced by
cash”; that in November 1976, he and Atty. Sergio Villareal
agreed that full payment of the land be delivered to the former at the rate of
P5,000 a month; that after April 18, 1975 and after the institution of this
administrative case, he was paid
P5,000 monthly in December 1976,
January and February, 1977; that he was prompted to file the complaint against
Atty. Villareal for the latter’s failure to deliver
monthly the amounts of P15,000 or P20,000 as earlier agreed upon between them;
that he understood all the allegations in his complaint; that he caused the
filing of the Motion to Dismiss because he and Atty. Villareal
have come to agree that instead of P20,000 Atty. Villareal
would pay him (Mario Hernandez) P5,000 monthly; that he wants to end the case
as he cannot afford anymore to pursue this complaint; that he was not forced
nor influenced in any manner by Atty. Villareal in
causing the filing of the motion to dismiss; that he understood fully the
allegations in his Motion to Dismiss; that he realizes that the allegations in
said motion to dismiss are contrary to the allegations in the complaint he
earlier filed; that he understands the legal consequences of the motion to
dismiss; and that he affirms under oath the contents of the Motion to Dismiss.

“Respondent Sergio Villareal
testified under oath:

“That he is the respondent in the complaint for disbarment
filed by Mario Hernandez; that he knows of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss
said complaint; that as a matter of fact, he had affixed his signature or
conformity to said motion to dismiss; that he did not have anything to do in
causing this motion to dismiss to be prepared; that the motion to dismiss was
the product or the consequence of a long series of confrontations with the
complainant in the presence of his counsel; that he did not give any
consideration nor promise anything to complainant for the latter to file the
motion to dismiss; that he did not exercise any undue influence on complainant
to file this motion to dismiss; and that as a matter of fact, the complainant
was all the time assisted by his counsel;”

x x x                          x x
x                             x
x x

“There is no question that the burden of proof in disbarment
proceedings rests upon the Complainant, and for the Court to exercise its
disciplinary powers, the case against respondent must be established by
convincing evidence.  In the case at bar,
Complainant is no longer interested in prosecuting this Administrative Case.

“Be that as it may, the trust relation which exists between
attorney and client as well as between court and attorney, and the statutory
rule prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an
attorney shall be a person of good moral character.  If that qualification is a condition
precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it would
seem to be equally essential during the continuance of the practice or the
exercise of the privilege.  So it is held
that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his license and the law confer upon him.  (In re Pelaez 44
Phil. 572 citing Peyton’s Appeal 12 Kan.
398, 404).

“Thus, while complainant has filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, the evidence on record shows censurable conduct on the part of
respondent in failing to deliver to complainant, per agreement, the proceeds of
the sale of subject land.  Considering
that the object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual
attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting
the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court (Deles v.
Aragonas, Jr., Adm. Case No. 598, March 28, 1969, 27
SCRA 634), undersigned, therefore, are of the view that respondent deserves to
be admonished to behave with more circumspection and display at all times the
highest degree of uprightness befitting a member of the bar.”

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against
respondent Atty. Sergio Villareal is DISMISSED but he is reprimanded for his
misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on a
repetition of the same act.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 4.

^[2] Ibid., p. 81.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 101.

^[4]
Ibid., p. 121.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 127.