Ramon Saura, Jr. v. Agdeppa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from the handling of a settlement case involving a property co-owned by complainants Ramon Saura, Jr., Helen Baldoria, and Raymundo Saura, along with their siblings. The administrators of the property, Macrina, Romeo, and Amelita Saura, with the assistance of respondent Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa, who notarized the Deed of Sale, sold the property to Sandalwood Real Estate and Development Corporation. The complainants allege this sale occurred without their knowledge or participation, and that the respondent, along with the vendors, refused to disclose the sale amount or account for the proceeds despite repeated demands, compelling the complainants to initiate legal actions. Procedural History: The Supreme Court received two petitions, one from Ramon Saura, Jr. and another from Helen Baldoria and Raymundo Saura, charging Atty. Agdeppa with violations of her lawyer's oath and professional ethics. These cases were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the Supreme Court. After initial attempts to serve resolutions were unsuccessful, the IBP proceeded with hearings. The complainants' counsel entered an appearance and provided the respondent's new address, subsequently furnishing her with copies of the complaint and relevant Supreme Court resolutions. Proof of receipt by the respondent was submitted, but no response was forthcoming from Atty. Agdeppa. The Petition: The petitions filed by Ramon Saura, Jr., Helen Baldoria, and Raymundo Saura charge Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa with violations of her lawyer's oath and specific provisions of the Canons of Professional Ethics, particularly concerning her handling of the sale of jointly owned property and the subsequent refusal to account for the proceeds. The respondent was recommended for a fine and suspension for failing to answer the administrative charges. She moved for reconsideration, claiming a denial of due process and attorney-client privilege. The Court found that the respondent was duly notified and failed to respond, and that the information requested regarding the sale proceeds was not privileged, as the complainants, being co-owners, had a right to this information.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent was accorded her right to due process. Whether the respondent could refuse to disclose the amount of the sale or account for the proceeds based on attorney-client privilege.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent's arguments unconvincing. The respondent was given notice on various occasions but chose to ignore them. The Court held that the information requested regarding the sale of the property and the accounting of its proceeds is not covered by the attorney-client privilege, as the petitioners, being co-owners, have a right to such information. Consequently, the respondent was penalized with a FINE of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00), payable within ten (10) days, otherwise, a penalty of imprisonment for five (5) days shall be imposed. The resolution was made immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The respondent was given notice on various occasions but chose to ignore them and failed to exercise her right to be heard. Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that no attorney shall be removed or suspended without full opportunity to answer charges after reasonable notice. However, if upon reasonable notice, the attorney fails to appear and answer, the court may proceed ex parte. Since the respondent repeatedly ignored the notices sent by the Court, the Court cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for her answer. Even if she had changed her address, she became aware of the Supreme Court Resolution on March 2, 1998, and the prudent action would have been to file an answer immediately, which she failed to do. The respondent's continued defiance of the Court's orders warranted disciplinary action. On the issue of attorney-client privilege: The request for information regarding the sale of the property and to account for the proceeds does not constitute a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court protects communications made by a client to an attorney or advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. However, the information requested by the petitioners is not privileged. The petitioners are co-heirs and co-owners of the property and have a right to ask for the disclosure of the sale amount and an accounting of the proceeds. Therefore, the respondent cannot refuse to divulge such information and hide behind the cloak of the attorney-client relationship. The information sought pertains to the disposition of a common property, not confidential communications between attorney and client.
Main Doctrine
An attorney who repeatedly ignores notices and orders from the Court to answer administrative charges, despite being accorded opportunities to be heard, may be penalized. The attorney-client privilege does not shield information regarding the disclosure of sale amounts or accounting for proceeds of a property co-owned by the client and other heirs, as such information is not confidential communication but a matter of right for the co-owners.