Ortigas Plaza Development Corp. v. Tumulak
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation (OPDC) owned a parcel of land in Pasig City. On November 29, 2012, respondent Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak, accompanied by security guards, allegedly unlawfully entered and took control of the property's entrance and exit. Atty. Tumulak had furnished OPDC documents, including a deed of assignment designating him as an assignee, related to the intestate proceedings of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. OPDC charged Atty. Tumulak with deceit, dishonesty, and fraud for claiming coordination with government agencies prior to the illegal entry, asserting that his principal's claim was barred by res judicata due to OPDC's valid Torrens title. Procedural History: In his Answer, Atty. Tumulak denied being present during the entry, claiming the allegations were hearsay and that the entry was effected by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner of Bar Discipline found Atty. Tumulak to have violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The case before the Supreme Court was to determine if Atty. Tumulak violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he facilitated the implementation of the writ of execution and the entry into OPDC's property.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Tumulak violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he facilitated the implementation of the writ of execution and the entry into the complainant's property; and whether his actions constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Tumulak guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 1, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective immediately, with a stern warning against future similar infractions. The decision was immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and whether his actions constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Commissioner, highlighting several transgressions by Atty. Tumulak. Firstly, it was noted that claims based on Spanish titles can no longer be a legitimate basis for ownership since February 16, 1976, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892. Secondly, as a seasoned practitioner, Atty. Tumulak is presumed to know of the Supreme Court's ruling in Evangelista, et al. vs. Santiago (G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005), which specifically addressed spurious "Deed of Assignment" claims related to the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez using a similar modus operandi. Thirdly, the deed of assignment in Atty. Tumulak's favor lacked a stated consideration, raising questions about its validity as a donation and the payment of corresponding taxes. Fourthly, the Court emphasized that a Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally; if Atty. Tumulak questioned OPDC's title, he should have filed a principal action to annul it, not resort to forcible entry with security guards. Fifthly, the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the writ of execution were highly questionable: court documents were from RTC-Iriga City, Branch 94, affecting a property in Pasig City; no taxes were paid for the assignment; the Sheriff of Manila was enlisted instead of the Pasig Sheriff; and the Sheriff and Atty. Tumulak were escorted by security guards who took over the gates with force and intimidation. The Court concluded that Atty. Tumulak's claimed innocence could not prevail over these illegalities in which he or his agents had a hand. The Court reiterated that PD 892 divests Spanish titles of legal force in establishing ownership, and that stare decisis was applied in Santiago v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (G.R. No. 156888, November 20, 2006) where the same issues and evidence concerning the Rodriguez Estate were involved. Furthermore, the 2011 ruling in Pascual v. Robles (G.R. No. 182645, June 22, 2011) affirmed the setting aside of the amended decision in S.P. No. IR-1110, which Atty. Tumulak admitted to have derived his rights from. As a lawyer, Atty. Tumulak is presumed to know these developments, as per Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that Atty. Tumulak could not shield himself behind the deed of assignment, as his duties included shouldering expenses and possessing, fencing, and guarding the property, indicating his active involvement in enforcing his principal's interest since March 22, 2010, leading up to the forcible intrusion on November 29, 2012. Even if the amended decision were valid, forcible intrusion was not the appropriate remedy; annulment of the complainant's title would have been the correct legal recourse. His conduct betrayed his Lawyer's Oath to support the Constitution and obey the laws, and he breached Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who participates in or abets unlawful and forcible intrusion into a property, especially when the claim is based on dubious titles and in disregard of established legal processes and settled jurisprudence, violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01 and 1.02, and warrants severe disciplinary action.