Deveza v. Del Prado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In February 2003, complainant Myrna M. Deveza sold a lot located at No. 3242 Malvar St., Brgy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 178828, to respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado for P1,500.00 per square meter on an installment basis. A Contract to Sell was executed, but Atty. Del Prado took all copies on the pretext of having it notarized and never provided the complainant with a copy. Atty. Del Prado defaulted on his payment obligation, leaving a balance of P565,950.00. When the complainant sent a demand letter for payment or rescission, Atty. Del Prado arranged a meeting at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, asking the complainant to bring the title. At the meeting, Atty. Del Prado presented a completely filled-up Deed of Absolute Sale and asked the complainant and her son to sign it, promising full payment after notarization. After they signed, he only gave them P5,000.00 and attempted to take the title, which the complainant managed to retrieve. Atty. Del Prado never paid the remaining balance and subsequently used the fraudulently signed Deed of Absolute Sale as evidence in a civil case filed against him by the complainant for rescission of contract, which misled the court. Procedural History: Complainant Myrna M. Deveza filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment against Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado for dishonesty and acts unbecoming a lawyer. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated September 3, 2012, required Atty. Del Prado to comment on the complaint, but he failed to do so. Pursuant to a Resolution dated November 18, 2013, the complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Despite due notice, Atty. Del Prado did not attend the mandatory conference on June 18, 2014, and failed to submit his position paper. On September 2, 2014, the IBP-CBD (Commission on Bar Discipline) issued its Report and Recommendation, finding Atty. Del Prado's conduct a flouting resistance to lawful orders and despiciency for his oath, recommending a two-year suspension. The IBP-Board of Governors, in its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-014 dated January 30, 2015, adopted and approved the IBP-CBD's report with a modification, increasing the suspension to five years. The Petition: The case is before the Supreme Court for final review of the IBP's findings and recommendation. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP, affirming the culpability of Atty. Del Prado for his dishonest conduct and his defiance of court and IBP orders.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado is guilty of dishonesty and acts unbecoming a lawyer, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado's wanton disregard of the lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) constitutes a violation of his duties as a lawyer.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for Five (5) years effective upon receipt of the decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found Atty. Del Prado guilty of dishonesty and acts unbecoming a lawyer, in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege requiring not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Atty. Del Prado deceived the complainant by making her sign a Deed of Absolute Sale under the false promise of full payment after notarization, only to provide a partial payment and then use the document fraudulently in a civil case. This conduct clearly falls short of the ethical standards expected of a lawyer, as it demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity in his private dealings, which reflects poorly on the legal profession. As held in Maligsa v. Cabanting, lawyers must refrain from any act that might lessen public confidence in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. His actions constituted deceitful conduct, directly contravening his duties as a member of the bar. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court also found Atty. Del Prado guilty of wantonly disregarding the lawful orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD. He failed to file his comment on the complaint-affidavit, did not appear at the mandatory conference, and failed to submit his position paper despite due notice. The Court underscored that a lawyer is an officer of the court who is duty-bound to obey and respect court processes. His continuous defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront to the court's authority, which cannot be tolerated. As reiterated in Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo, lawyers must acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their authority over him as a member of the bar. This persistent non-compliance demonstrates a clear disrespect for the judicial system and his oath of office, warranting disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
The main doctrine established and applied in this case is that the practice of law is a privilege contingent upon a lawyer's continuous demonstration of legal qualifications, high moral standards, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Lawyers are strictly bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 7, which mandates upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. This doctrine extends to a lawyer's private dealings and includes the fundamental duty to obey and respect all lawful orders and processes of the courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), as defiance is considered a contemptuous affront to judicial authority.