Maquera, In re
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera), a member of the Philippine Bar, was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years due to misconduct. The misconduct involved acquiring his client's property as payment for legal services, selling it for a substantial profit, and obtaining an unreasonably high fee. Specifically, Maquera represented Castro in a civil case where Castro's property was subject to redemption. Maquera entered into an oral agreement with Castro to accept the right of redemption as payment for legal services. Maquera then exercised this right, paid the judgment debt, and subsequently sold the property for US$320,000.00, realizing a profit of over US$200,000.00 against his legal fees of US$45,000.00. Procedural History: The District Court of Guam informed the Supreme Court of the Philippines about Maquera's suspension. The case was referred to the Bar Confidant and subsequently to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Maquera could not be served with a notice of hearing as he had moved from his last known address. The IBP recommended Maquera's indefinite suspension for failure to pay IBP membership dues since 1977. The Petition: The Supreme Court initiated proceedings to determine if Maquera's actions in Guam warranted similar sanctions in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Leon G. Maquera's suspension from the practice of law in Guam for acquiring his client's property as payment for legal services and selling it for a substantial profit constitutes grounds for his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Whether Maquera's failure to pay his IBP membership dues warrants his suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to require Atty. Leon G. Maquera to show cause why he should not be suspended or disbarred for his acts in Guam. In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year or until he pays his membership dues, whichever comes later. The Court also directed the Bar Confidant to locate Maquera's current address to serve him with the Resolution and afford him due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Maquera's misconduct in Guam: The Court held that Maquera's acts of acquiring his client's property by assignment of the right of redemption, exercising said right, and selling the property for a huge profit, are violative of Philippine law and ethical standards for lawyers. Specifically, these acts fall under Article 1491, paragraph 5, in relation to Article 1492 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring by assignment the property that is the subject of litigation or sale in legal redemption handled by them. This prohibition is based on public policy to prevent lawyers from taking advantage of their clients. The Court cited the case of In re: Ruste to illustrate that such acquisition constitutes malpractice. Furthermore, Maquera's actions were deemed deceitful and in bad faith, as he charged an exorbitant fee for his services, violating Canon 17 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate fidelity to the client's cause and prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The judgment of the Guam Superior Court is considered prima facie evidence, but due process requires a separate investigation in the Philippines. On the issue of Maquera's failure to pay IBP membership dues: The Court agreed with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 to the present. Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court provides that default in payment of dues for one year is a ground for removal from the Roll of Attorneys. The indefinite suspension recommended by the IBP for this reason was modified to a one-year suspension or until payment is made, whichever is later, pending the resolution of the misconduct charges.
Main Doctrine
A member of the Philippine Bar suspended or disbarred in a foreign jurisdiction for acts constituting deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct, or grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the lawyer's oath, may be similarly sanctioned in the Philippines, with the foreign judgment serving as prima facie evidence of the grounds for disbarment or suspension. However, due process requires that the lawyer be given an opportunity to defend himself in a Philippine investigation.