Basiyo v. Alisuag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons, common-law spouses, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag for the purchase of a parcel of land. Alisuag recommended a lot and prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale for P1,973,820.00, which Basiyo signed. He also prepared an unnotarized Agreement for the same price. Alisuag received a commission and substantial amounts for capital gains tax, estate tax, publication, documentary stamp tax, an Environmental Impact Study, and filing an application for a Wildlife Permit. Complainants later discovered they could not obtain title to the property and faced a criminal charge from Trinidad Ganzon, who claimed ownership. Alisuag also received funds for filing a counter-affidavit and a civil case against Ganzon. After several months, complainants had not acquired title, fenced the lot, obtained the environmental study/permit, nor had the civil case been filed. They demanded an accounting and return of remaining funds. Procedural History: Complainants discovered that no estate tax was paid, only a portion of the capital gains tax was paid, and the purchase price in a subsequently notarized deed of sale was P120,000.00, as published. They also learned that the vendors were not the sole heirs of the registered owner, necessitating an Amended Extra-Judicial Settlement. Alisuag failed to present the document to the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples for approval, despite the vendors being native Tagbanuas. The vendors also claimed to have only received P300,000.00. The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) initially recommended dismissal for lack of merit. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed this, finding Alisuag guilty of deceit and falsification, and suspended him for two years. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution and Extended Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag is guilty of deceit, falsification, and malpractice in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent Atty. Alisuag failed to account for client funds and neglected legal matters entrusted to him. Whether the acts of respondent Atty. Alisuag warrant suspension from the practice of law and revocation of his notarial commission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, his notarial commission is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. He is ordered to render the necessary accounting of expenses and return the remaining unutilized amount to the complainants within sixty (60) days from notice. A warning is issued that repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deceit, falsification, and malpractice: The Court found that Alisuag's act of notarizing a subsequent deed of sale with a purchase price of P120,000.00, six days after he had given complainants an estimate of P150,000.00 for capital gains tax based on a higher purchase price, and which was later submitted to the BIR, clearly indicated deceit. This act facilitated the deprivation of the government of correct taxes. The Court found his explanation that the P120,000.00 was the agreed price unconvincing, especially considering the discrepancy in the capital gains tax computation. Furthermore, the Court noted that no estate tax was assessed or paid, contrary to what was represented. On the failure to account for client funds and neglect of legal matters: The Court found that Alisuag received P10,000.00 for filing a civil suit against Ganzon but never filed the case. He also failed to secure the environmental clearance and wildlife permit for which he received P300,000.00. His refusal to render a complete accounting of alleged expenses and return remaining funds, despite demands, raised a presumption of conversion for his own use. This conduct violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandate accounting for client funds and their delivery upon demand. His negligence in failing to file the suit and secure permits also violated Rule 18.03 of the CPR, which prohibits neglecting legal matters entrusted to him. On the appropriate penalty: The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that Alisuag must be held administratively accountable. The Court reiterated that a lawyer may be suspended or removed for deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. By notarizing a document intended to defraud the government and by failing to uphold his duties to his clients, Alisuag violated his oath to uphold the law and protect the dignity of the legal profession. The Court also cited recent jurisprudence where lawyers were perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as notaries public for failing to observe utmost care in their duties, emphasizing the importance of public trust in notarized documents. Therefore, suspension from practice, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public were deemed appropriate sanctions.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a deed of sale with a significantly lower purchase price than the actual transaction, thereby facilitating tax evasion, and who fails to account for client funds or file cases as agreed, is guilty of deceit and malpractice, warranting suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public.