FLORENTINO B. DEL ROSARIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. EUGENIO MILLADO, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Florentino B. del Rosario
seeks the disbarment of respondent, Attorney Eugenio Millado, upon the ground that the latter had committed
malpractice, in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
and Canon No. 10 of the Canons of Legal Ethics, by acquiring an interest in the
land involved in a liti­gation in which he had taken part by reason of his
profession; that said interest was adverse to that of his client in the
aforementioned litigation; and that he filed therein pleadings
containing allegations which were inconsistent with those made in another
pleading subse­quently filed by him in the same proceedings, as well as false.

In his answer to these charges, respondent alleged that his
interest in said land had been acquired before he intervened in said
proceedings, as counsel for one of the parties therein; that his client therein
was aware of his aforementioned interest; that there is no conflict between the
same and that of his client; and that there is neither a false allegation of
facts in the pleadings alluded to in the complaint herein nor any inconsistency
between said pleadings.  By way of
“counterclaim,” respondent alleged, also, that the present charges
had been preferred as a means to offset an action for damages and some criminal
charges filed by him against complainant herein.

After due investigation conducted by the office of the Solicitor
General, to whom said charges were referred therefor,
the afore­mentioned officer submitted his report exonerating, in effect,
respondent herein.

Indeed, the provisions of the Civil Code and of the Canons of
Legal Ethics, prohibit the purchase by lawyers of any
interest in the subject matter of the litigation in which they participated by
reason of their profession, and complainant herein has not estab­lished a
violation of such injunction.  In this
connection, respondent introduced evidence, which is uncontradicted,
to the effect that one Eladio Tiburcio,
now deceased, claimed title to a tract of land of about 430 hectares, in Diliman, Quezon
City; that parts of said land were the object of two
(2) ejectment cases of the City Court of Quezon City, against La Paz Mesina
Vda. de Pascual, one of the
heirs of said deceased, one filed by herein complainant, Florentino
B. del Rosario, and the other by Leonor Sta. Clara;
that prior to the institution of said cases, one Conrado
Baluyot, who claims to be another heir of Eladio Tiburcio, offered to allow
respondent to cons­truct a house on part of said land of about 430 hectares, in
considera­tion of his professional services in defense of the claim thereto of
the Tiburcios; that Baluyot’s
understanding with respondent was that, should he succeed in securing a
decision favorable to the Tiburcios, he (respondent)
could buy the land on which his house was built, namely, lots 4 and 5 of Block
E-102 of Quezon City, by paying the current value
thereof; that Mrs. Pascual, who occupied another lot
in the same block, knew that respondent was in possession of said lots 4 and 5
and had constructed a house thereon, by agreement with Baluyot,
as one of the heirs of the deceased; that Mrs. Pascual,
who claimed an interest in the whole Block E-102, asked respondent to be her
counsel in said ejectment cases; that, after filing
the answer of Mrs. Pascual, as defendant in said two
(2) cases, respondent ceased to be her counsel therein; and that, although in
her aforementioned answer, he alleged that Mrs. Pascual
was the owner and possessor of the lots involved in said cases, there is no
real inconsistency bet­ween this allegation and his claim over said lots 4 and
5, much less a misrepresentation of facts, because the issue in the ejectment cases hinged upon the right of possession,
whereas the alleged ownership of Mrs. Pascual merely
tended to bolster up her alleged prior possession, and because he could not
acquire title to said lots 4 and 5 from the heirs of the late Eladio Tiburcio, unless they –
and, hence, Mrs. Pascual, as one of the heirs of the
deceased – were the true owners thereof.

Thus, the records show that respondent’s alleged interest in said
lots was acquired before he intervened as counsel for Mrs. Pascual in the ejectment cases
against her and that said interest is not necessarily inconsistent with that of
his aforementioned client, aside from the fact that he had made no substantial
misrepresenta­tion in the pleadings filed by him in said cases.  This fact and the absence of said conflict
are made more manifest by the circumstance that the charges under consideration
have been preferred, not by Mrs. Pascual, but by her
opponent in one of the ejectment cases above
mentioned.

Finding no merit in the complaint herein, the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.