Agustin v. Laeno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Domingo C. Laeno and Marcelina Agustin, represented by her daughter Perpetua, agreed to the sale of a house and lot for P6,500,000.00. After the property was transferred, Perpetua entered into a rental agreement with Atty. Laeno for the same property. Atty. Laeno eventually defaulted on rental payments and refused to vacate the premises. During the subsequent ejectment case, it was discovered that the sale was covered by two different Deeds of Absolute Sale, both notarized by Atty. Reginaldo D. Bergado on the same date and using the same notarial document number (Doc. 138, Page No. 28, Book VII, Series of 2002). One deed reflected a consideration of P2,000,000.00 and the other P2,500,000.00, both of which were significantly lower than the actual P6,500,000.00 price, intended to avoid proper tax payments. Procedural History: Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin filed a disbarment complaint against Attys. Laeno, Robiso, and Bergado. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Laeno guilty of misconduct for the bogus deeds and for filing multiple suits to avoid eviction. The Commissioner also found Atty. Bergado liable for the irregular notarization but recommended dismissing the case against Atty. Robiso for insufficiency of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted these findings, recommending a two-year suspension for Atty. Laeno and the revocation of Atty. Bergado's notarial commission. The Petition: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court for final administrative review. The Court examined whether Atty. Laeno's actions in executing undervalued deeds and filing multiple suits to frustrate a final judgment violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). It also addressed the status of the case against Atty. Bergado, who had passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, and the liability of Atty. Robiso as counsel in the related rescission case.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Domingo C. Laeno violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by executing undervalued deeds of sale and filing multiple suits to delay the execution of a judgment. Whether the administrative case against Atty. Reginaldo D. Bergado should proceed despite his death. Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Romeo R. Robiso administratively liable.
Ruling
Atty. Domingo C. Laeno is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years. The case against Atty. Romeo R. Robiso is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. The Court noted the death of Atty. Reginaldo D. Bergado, effectively mooting the administrative sanctions against him.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found Atty. Laeno liable for violating Canons 1, 7, 10, and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). By executing two deeds of sale with undervalued considerations, he intentionally attempted to evade the payment of proper taxes, violating his duty under Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land. His act of offering one of these 'bogus' deeds as evidence before the Court constituted a breach of Canon 10, which requires candor and good faith toward the court. Furthermore, his strategy of filing multiple suits to avoid eviction after a final judgment in the ejectment case was a clear violation of Canon 12, which mandates that lawyers assist in the speedy administration of justice. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must act with the highest standards of truthfulness and fair play, and Laeno's actions were 'reprehensible transgressions' that warranted an increased penalty of five years' suspension. On Issue 2: Regarding Atty. Bergado, the Court noted that he had passed away on November 22, 2008, as evidenced by a death certificate attached to the records. Although the IBP Investigating Commissioner had overlooked this fact and recommended the revocation of his notarial commission, the Court acknowledged the death. In administrative cases, the death of the respondent generally results in the dismissal of the case or renders the imposition of a penalty moot. Consequently, no penalty was imposed on the deceased respondent, and the IBP's recommendation for revocation was not implemented. On Issue 3: The case against Atty. Romeo R. Robiso was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence. While he served as counsel for Atty. Laeno in a case for the rescission of the sale to Marcelina, the records did not sufficiently establish that he participated in the fraudulent execution of the deeds or the bad-faith litigation strategy employed by Laeno. Administrative liability requires substantial evidence, and in the absence of proof that Robiso violated the CPR, the charges against him could not be sustained. The Court affirmed the IBP's recommendation to absolve him of liability.
Main Doctrine
The legal profession demands the highest standards of truthfulness and fair play. A lawyer's act of executing multiple deeds of sale with undervalued considerations to avoid tax obligations constitutes a violation of the duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes under Canon 1. Furthermore, the use of the judicial system to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment through the filing of multiple suits is a breach of the lawyer's duty under Canon 12 to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Such reprehensible conduct undermines the integrity of the legal profession and warrants a significant period of suspension from the practice of law.