Saura v. Agdeppa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Two separate complaints were filed against respondent Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa by Ramon Saura, Jr., and by Helen Baldoria and Raymundo Saura. These complaints stemmed from the respondent's handling of a settlement case involving a property co-owned by the complainants and their siblings. The complainants alleged that the respondent, along with other co-administrators, sold the property to Sandalwood Real Estate and Development Corporation without their knowledge or participation. Furthermore, they claimed that the respondent refused to disclose the sale amount or account for the proceeds despite repeated demands, compelling the complainants to initiate criminal and civil actions. 2. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially referred these cases to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. After initial attempts to serve resolutions were unsuccessful, the IBP, following a Supreme Court resolution, provided the respondent with a copy of the complaint and relevant court orders at her new address. The respondent's counsel confirmed receipt of these documents, evidenced by a return card dated March 2, 1998. Despite this, the respondent failed to submit any response to the administrative charges leveled against her. 3. The Petition: The complainants charged Atty. Agdeppa with violating her lawyer's oath and specific canons of professional ethics, particularly concerning her alleged failure to disclose information about the property sale and account for the proceeds. The respondent subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing a denial of due process and attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent had been duly notified and had failed to respond, thus waiving her right to be heard. The Court also determined that the information requested was not privileged, as the complainants, as co-owners, had a right to know the details of the sale and the distribution of proceeds.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Agdeppa was accorded due process. Whether the respondent's refusal to disclose the amount of the sale or account for the proceeds violated the attorney-client privilege.
Ruling
The Court found that the respondent was accorded due process and that her refusal to disclose the sale amount or account for the proceeds did not fall under the attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the respondent was penalized with a FINE of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) payable within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, with a penalty of imprisonment for five (5) days for non-compliance. The resolution was made immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The respondent was accorded due process. The Court noted that the respondent was given notice on various occasions but chose to ignore them. Section 30 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that if an attorney fails to appear and answer the accusations after reasonable notice, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. Although the respondent claimed she did not receive previous notices due to a change of address, she was undeniably aware of the Supreme Court Resolution dated June 19, 1995, on March 2, 1998, as evidenced by the return card. The prudent course of action would have been to file an answer immediately, but she failed to do so, thereby forfeiting her right to be heard in this instance. On Issue 2: The request for information regarding the sale of the property and an accounting of the proceeds does not constitute a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court protects communications made by a client to an attorney in the course of professional employment. However, the information sought by the petitioners pertains to the disposition of a property co-owned by them and their siblings, and the respondent's role as the notary public in the Deed of Sale. The petitioners, as co-owners, have a legitimate right to inquire about the sale and the proceeds thereof. The respondent cannot invoke the attorney-client privilege to shield herself from providing an accounting of the sale of property in which the petitioners have a proprietary interest, especially given her involvement in the transaction.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that in administrative cases against lawyers, failure to respond to notices after proper service allows the Court to proceed ex parte, as provided by Section 30 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court also clarified that the attorney-client privilege under Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court does not cover communications regarding the sale of property co-owned by the client and others, especially when the lawyer's participation in the transaction and notarization requires an accounting of the proceeds to the co-owners.