FERMIN U. IMBUIDO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. FIDEL SOB. MANGONON, RESPONDENT.

Petitioner filed a charge of malpractice against respondent in view
of certain misbehavior he has committed as member of the bar.

Petitioner claims that on June 14, 1948, he sold with the consent of
his, wife 10 parcels of land located at Manaoag, Pangasinan, which are
covered by a certificate of title, with option to repurchase, to Mrs.
Maria E. Gonzales for P3,600.00, of which P3,000.00 were actually paid
and the balance of P600.00 was applied to the payment of interest. It
was intimated then that of the parcels of land sold 7 had been
previously encumbered in favor of other persons who were thereby placed
in their possession. According to the deed of sale the lands would be
repurchased on or before December 31, 1948 but unfortunately petitioner
failed to exercise his right of redemption and so Mrs. Gonzales
consolidated her ownership over them and a new certificate of title was
issued in her name.

Sometime in December, 1949, petitioner engaged the services of
respondent in an effort to negotiate the redemption of the lands from
Mrs. Gonzales which commission respondent accepted although no mention
was made then regarding his attorney’s fees. Petitioner raised the sum
of P4,600.00 from the same persons to whom the 7 parcels of land had
been encumbered with the understanding that their previous contract
would be changed into absolute sales for the amounts respectively taken
from them and delivered the same to respondent. Thereupon, respondent
proceeded to negotiate with Mrs. Gonzales for the repurchase of the
lands having succeeded in doing so for the sum of P4,056.00, including
incidental expenses. The balance of the money was kept by respondent as
professional fee.

But to his astonishment, petitioner discovered that respondent
repurchased the lands in his own name in disregard of his instruction
and had done so even without his knowledge and consent. Respondent did
more than that. After putting the lands in his name and securing a
transfer certificate of title in his favor, respondent disposed of them
in favor of other persons realizing therefrom an aggregate amount of
P20,000.00, thereby depriving petitioner of the three parcels of land
which were not previously encumbered.

On March 17, 1951, petitioner filed an action before the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan against respondent to recover the lands he
misappropriated, plus damages, which was eventually decided in favor of
petitioner by granting him one year period within which to redeem the
lands sold by respondent. Because of this irregularity, petitioner
filed a complaint against respondent with the Presidential Complaint
and Action Committee which in due course referred the matter to the
Department of Justice for investigation.

Petitioner prays that corresponding disciplinary action be taken against respondent.

Respondent in his answer denied having been engaged by petitioner as
his lawyer in connection with the redemption of the parcels of land
sold by petitioner to Mrs. Maria E. Gonzales. He avers that those who
engaged his services to effect such redemption were the persons to whom
petitioner had previously encumbered the lands by executing merely
private documents evidencing the receipt of P17,400.00. When these
persons approached respondent in order that he may help them redeem the
lands he advised them after studying the matter that in spite of the
expiration of the period of redemption the lands could still be
redeemed in accordance with Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141
because the lands were formerly public lands provided that they raise
the necessary amount to pay the purchase price. Respondent and his
clients went to see petitioner whom they intimated that his action in
selling the lands after having previously encumbered them in favor of
his clients was irregular for which he could be charged with estafa
because he sold them without informing thereof the previous creditors
who gave him the sum of P17,400.00 with the result that Mrs. Gonzales
consolidated her ownership and obtained a new title over them.
Respondent further warned petitioner that being then the municipal
mayor he could be suspended from office because of the irregularity he
has committed. It was then that petitioner who was afraid of being
suspended pleaded to respondent that he exert his influence in raising
the necessary amount to effect the redemption of the lands from Mrs.
Gonzales with the understanding that the lands would be conveyed to his
clients for the amounts they had given to petitioner. Respondent
finally avers that he did not know petitioner personally and only came
to know him when his clients broached to him the transactions they had
with petitioner. As a special defense, respondent charged petitioner
with malice and unjustifiable motives in filing this complaint against
him.

In a resolution entered on January 12, 1955, this Court referred the
case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation. Thereafter, this official, having found probable cause,
filed a formal complaint against respondent in accordance with our own
rules. Respondent answered the complaint, and after hearing was held,
the Solicitor General submitted a memorandum recommending that
respondent be given the corrective penalty that the facts may warrant.

It appears proven that the 10 parcels of land in question were
formerly registered in the name of petitioner although apparently they
originally belonged to his wife and mother-in-law. Seven parcels of
these lands had been encumbered by petitioner with the consent of his
wife and his mother-in-law in favor of several persons from whom he
received the aggregate sum of P17,400.00. Then on June 14, 1948,
petitioner, also with the consent of his wife, sold the 10 parcels of
land with option to repurchase for the sum of P3,600.00 to Mrs. Maria
E. Gonzales of which P3,000.00 only was delivered because the balance
of P600.00 was considered as interest. And because 7 of the above
parcels of land had already been, encumbered to other persons it was
agreed that Mrs. Gonzales would not share in the produce of the land
during the period of redemption. When said period expired and
petitioner failed to redeem the land Mrs. Gonzales consolidated her
ownership and obtained the issuance of a new title in her name. As a
consequence, Mrs. Gonzales brought an action for ejectment against
those who were in possession of the fond including the persons to whom
they had been previously encumbered. To forestall the prejudice that
such action would cause to said persons, petitioner contracted the
services of respondent in an attempt to find ways by which the lands
could be redeemed. Respondent accepted the commission although no
specific agreement was had with regard to his attorney’s fees. And
after studying the case he found that the lands could still be redeemed
under the provisions of Section 119, Commonwealth Act 141, and so he
asked petitioner to raise the amount necessary for such redemption.
Petitioner contacted the persons to whom the lands were previously
encumbered to inform them of the necessity of raising the sum of
P4,600.00 and they agreed to contribute such amount provided that the 7
parcels of land thus encumbered be conveyed to them in full payment of
the amounts they had advanced, and after this amount was raised it was
given to respondent in order that he may effect the redemption.
Respondent then entered into negotiations with Mrs. Gonzales who was finally prevailed upon to resell the 10 parcels of land for the sum of
P4,056.00, but instead of executing the sale in favor of petitioner she
executed it in the name of respondent. This was done at the request of
respondent. And when petitioner came to know this fact he filed this
complaint alleging that respondent has committed an irregularity for
which he should be disciplined as member of the bar.

The claim of respondent that petitioner has never contracted his
services as lawyer in order to negotiate with Mrs. Gonzales the
redemption of the parcels of land which where sold to her under pacto de retro
by petitioner cannot be entertained in the face of what appears in the
letter he sent to Mrs. Gonzales relative to the redemption which,
because of its bearing hereon, we quote hereunder:

“My dear Mr. & Mrs. Gonzales:

Mayor
FERMIN U. IMBUIDO of San Fabian, Pangasinan, came to my LAW OFFICE,
Manaoag, Pangasinan, in connection with his TEN (10) PARCELS of land
sold to you under a ‘VENTA CON PACTO DE RETRO’ in the amount of
P3,600.00. He told me that the real amount of money he received from
you was P3,000.00, but you collected from him the additional amount of
P600.00 as interest of the P3,000.00. Apparently, the transaction is
usurious especially considering that within a short period of six (6)
months your original capital earned P600.00 plus the ten (10) parcels
of land the ownership of which you consolidated in your name for which
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 5912 was issued. Mayor IMBUIDO
desires to repurchase the land conditionally sold to you as
aforementioned because under the law applicable in the premises, he can
redeem said land and you can be obliged to execute the corresponding
Deed of Reconveyance.

With this letter, we are therefore
making the formal demand from you before we deposit the amount of
P3,600.00 in the Office of the Clerk of Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan.
May we request you to inform us within a reasonable time whether you
will agree to have said lands redeemed or not, otherwise, if we cannot
hear from you until Saturday, December 31, 1949, we will be
constrained, much against our wish, to file the corresponding action
for the reconveyance of said parcels of land in the Court of First
Instance.

Hoping to hear from you and wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) Fidel Sob. Mangonon
Attorney for Mayor Fermin U. Imbuido
Manaoag, Pangasinan”

Note that copy of the above letter was sent by respondent to petitioner at the foot of which appears the following notation:

“Dear Mayor:

Here is a copy of my letter to the Gonzales. I sent it by registered mail today.

Yours,
Atty. Mangonon”

A perusal of said letter would readily show that respondent has
written it in his capacity as lawyer of petitioner for it not only
contains a veiled threat that the transaction concerning the sale of 10
parcels of land was usurious in character because the interest earned
was not in proportion to the relatively short period given for their
redemption but because it contains a warning that if the request is not
allowed the corresponding action would be taken in the proper court for
the reconveyance of the property. It is not, therefore, correct to say
that the ones who hired the services of respondent in connection with
the redemption were the persons to whom the lands had been previously
encumbered as claimed by respondent. Having been established that
between petitioner and respondent there existed the relation of
attorney and client when the former negotiated with Mrs. Gonzales the
redemption of the lands it would appear strange if not suspicious that
respondent would undertake the redemption of the lands not only in the
absence of petitioner but even without his knowledge, and what is
worst, respondent went to the extent of persuading Mrs. Gonzales to
execute the deed of resale in his own name. This is not only irregular
but a serious breach of professional duty towards petitioner whose
trust respondent disregarded and violated.

It is true that respondent claims that he acted the way he did
because he was then representing not the petitioner but the persons to
whom the lands had been previously encumbered. Even if this may be
true, the fact however remains that the vendor of the land in the sale
to Mrs. Gonzales was the petitioner and common sense dictates, as
respondent should know, that the reconveyance should be made in the
name of the vendor. The fact that respondent has afterwards executed
different deeds of conveyance of the 8 parcels of land to several
persons among whom were those to whom they had been previously
encumbered for the amounts they had respectively advanced cannot erase
the irregularity he has committed for that is contrary to the ordinary
course of law and the understanding he had with his client. Nor can
respondent justify the fact that he kept for himself the two parcels of
land involved in the transaction under the pretext that he had them
placed in his name in payment of his attorney’s fees, for there is
nothing in the evidence that may justify such claim. On the contrary,
the evidence shows that out of the sum of P4,600.00 that was given to
him to effect the redemption he only paid P4,056.00 and kept the
balance to himself. In our opinion, these two parcels of land should be
returned to petitioner without prejudice to determining later the
amount of professional fees respondent is entitled to in an appropriate
action.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent guilty of professional
misconduct and so hereby suspends him as member of the bar for a period
of one (1) year from receipt of this decision.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.