DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. JOSEPHINE PALOGAN EDUARTE, RESPONDENT.

This is a complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Josephine Palogan-Eduarte originally filed with this Court on April 18,
1988. On August 10, 1989, the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which
the case was referred for investigation, submitted a report confirming in
substance the charge of violation of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code and part of
the Oath of Office of a lawyer and recommending the suspension of herein
respondent.

The evidence discloses that on July 18, 1983, Antonia Ulibari
filed with the RTC, Branch XXII, Cabagan, Isabela, Civil Case No. 391 for
annulment of a document (known as Affidavit of Adjudication of the Estate of
Felicisimo Velasco and Quitclaim Thereof) against her children. The case was handled by Atty. Henedino Eduarte,
herein respondent’s husband, until his appointment as RTC judge on October 26,
1984. His wife, Atty. Josephine
Palogan-Eduarte, took over. On August
22, 1985, decision in Civil Case No. 391 was rendered in favor of Antonia
Ulibari. Except for Dominga
Velasco-Ordonio, one of the children of Antonia Ulibari and complainant in the
instant case, the rest of the defendants did not appeal. On June 13, 1987, while Civil Case No. 391
was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, Antonia Ulibari conveyed some
parcels of her land to her children in the form of deeds of absolute sale,
prepared and notarized by herein respondent. Significantly, on the same day, Antonia Ulibari also conveyed 20
hectares of land to herein respondent and her husband as their Attorney’s fees
for legal services rendered. All the
titles of the lands subject of the deeds of absolute sale and the deed of
conveyance however remained in the
name of Antonia Ulibari.

On April 4, 1988, Dominga Velasco-Ordonio filed this complaint
for disbarment against herein respondent on the basis of an affidavit executed
by her mother Antonia Ulibari on March 2, 1988 stating that affiant never
conveyed the subject parcel of land to respondent as her attorney’s fees and
that the deeds of absolute sale executed in favor of her children were not known to her (and that she received no
consideration therefor).

On August 10, 1989, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a
report finding the charges to be true and recommending a one-year suspension of
the respondent from the practice of law.

The first issue to be resolved is whether Antonia Ulibari was
defrauded into signing the Deed of Conveyance transferring to her lawyer
(herein respondent) the subject parcel of land containing 298,420 square meters
as the latter’s attorney’s fees. It is
clear from Antonia Ulibari’s affidavit and deposition that she never conveyed
the said land to her lawyer as attorney’s fees.

Even granting for the sake of argument that Antonia Ulibari
knowingly and voluntarily conveyed the subject property in favor of the respondent
and her husband, the respondent, in causing the execution of the Deed of
Conveyance during the pendency of the appeal of the case involving the said
property, has violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits lawyers from
“acquiring by assignment property and rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.”

In the case at bar, the property (which includes the more than 20
hectares of land allegedly conveyed to the respondent) was already in actual
litigation first in the lower court and then in the Court of Appeals. Whether the deed of conveyance was executed
at the instance of the client driven by financial necessity or of the lawyer is
of no moment (In re: Atty. Melchor E.
Ruste, 70 Phil 243). “In either case, an attorney occupies a vantage
position to press upon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in breach of
the rule so amply protective of
the confidential relations, which must necessarily exist between attorney and
client, and of the rights of both.” The act constitutes malpractice, even if the lawyer had purchased the
property in litigation. (Hernandez v.
Villanueva, 40 Phil. 775; In re: Calderon, 7 Phil. 427). We agree with the Investigating
Commissioner’s opinion that the prohibition applies when the lawyer has not
paid money for it and the property was merely assigned to him in consideration
of legal services rendered at a time when the property is still the subject of
a pending case.

For having improperly acquired the subject property, under the
foregoing circumstances, respondent has violated not only Art. 1491 of the
Civil Code but also Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides
that “the lawyer should not purchase any interest in the subject matter of
the litigation which he is conducting.”

The last issue to be resolved is whether respondent violated any
law in preparing and notarizing the deeds of absolute sale in making it appear
that there were considerations therefor, when in truth there were none so
received by the seller. In her answer,
respondent admitted that Antonia Ulibari did not actually sell the parcels of
land to her children for the considerations stated in the deeds of sale and
that she (respondent) “utilized the form of deed of sale as the most
convenient and appropriate document to effect the transfer of the parcels of
land to Antonia Ulibari’s children in accordance with her wish that said
parcels of land be given to them.”

In so doing, respondent has manifestly violated that part of her
oath as a lawyer that she shall not do any falsehood. Not only that. In preparing the documents which do not reflect
the true transaction, respondent has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides:

“Rule 10.01. A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.”

ACCORDINGLY, for having violated Article 1491 of the Civil
Code, respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months, and, for having stated falsehoods in the four (4)
deeds of absolute sale she prepared and notarized, in violation of the lawyer’s
oath and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent is
also ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of another six (6)
months, resulting in a total period of one year, effective from the date this
judgment becomes final.

SUSPENSION ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ.,
concur.