Deveza vs. Del Prado

A lawyer may be suspended from the practice of law for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he engages in dishonest or deceitful conduct in a private transaction and repeatedly defies lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Myrna M. Deveza owned a parcel of land in Caloocan City, and Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado, a member of the Philippine Bar, agreed to purchase it on an installment basis under a Contract to Sell. The Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 7 and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, governs the conduct of lawyers and requires them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Myrna M. Deveza owned a lot located at No. 3242 Malvar St., Bragy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City, consisting of 633.80 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 178828 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City. In February 2003, Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado bought the lot for ₱1,500.00 per square meter on installment basis. To evidence the sale, they executed a Contract to Sell. Atty. Del Prado took all copies of the Contract to Sell on the pretext that he would have the document notarized, but he never gave complainant a copy.

Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation to pay the purchase price, leaving a balance of ₱565.950.00. Complainant sent him a demand letter for payment and/or rescission of sale. He called her and told her that he would meet her and her son at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, where he would pay his unpaid balance. He likewise asked her to bring the title over the property.

At the meeting, Atty. Del Prado asked for the title, and complainant showed it to him. He then brought out a completely filled-up Deed of Sale and asked them to sign it before he would give payment. After they signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, he gave them P5,000.00 and told them that he would have the document notarized before he would give complete payment. At that juncture, Atty. Del Prado tried to put the title inside his bag, but complainant was able to grab it from him.

Atty. Del Prado never paid the balance of the purchase price. Worse, he used the Deed of Absolute Sale that he had made them sign by means of fraud as evidence in the civil case complainant filed against him for rescission of contract, which misled the court. These allegations formed the basis of complainant's Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment against him for dishonesty and acts unbecoming a lawyer.

• Dishonesty in the Contract to Sell: Complainant alleged that Atty. Del Prado bought her lot on installment, defaulted on the balance of ₱565.950.00, and took all copies of the Contract to Sell on the pretext of notarization but never gave her a copy.
• Fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale: Complainant alleged that Atty. Del Prado induced her and her son to sign a completely filled-up Deed of Absolute Sale at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, by promising to pay the full balance after notarization; he gave only P5,000.00, never paid the balance, and tried to take the title.
• Use of Fraudulent Deed in Civil Case: Complainant alleged that Atty. Del Prado used the Deed of Absolute Sale, which he had obtained through fraud, as evidence in the civil case she filed for rescission of contract, thereby misleading the court.
• Acts Unbecoming a Lawyer: Complainant charged Atty. Del Prado with dishonesty and acts unbecoming a lawyer, which formed the basis of her disbarment complaint.

• Dishonesty and Deceitful Conduct: Whether Atty. Del Prado violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct in his transaction with complainant.
• Integrity and Dignity of the Legal Profession: Whether Atty. Del Prado violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
• Defiance of Court and IBP Orders: Whether Atty. Del Prado's failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to appear at the mandatory conference warranted disciplinary sanction.
• Penalty: Whether suspension from the practice of law for five years is the appropriate penalty for the violations.

• Dishonesty and Deceitful Conduct: Yes. Atty. Del Prado violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 by deceiving complainant into signing the Deed of Absolute Sale and making her believe he would pay the full balance after notarization, then reneging on his obligation.
• Integrity and Dignity of the Legal Profession: Yes. He violated Canon 7, his conduct falling short of the morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of every lawyer.
• Defiance of Court and IBP Orders: Yes. His wanton disregard of lawful orders and continued defiance constituted a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority.
• Penalty: Five-year suspension. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for five years effective upon receipt of the decision, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• Dishonesty and Deceitful Conduct: The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers, as vanguards of the legal system, are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. The Court will not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for conduct wanting in morality, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, whether committed in a professional or private capacity. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Atty. Del Prado deceived complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and making her believe that he would pay in full the balance after notarization. Complainant waited for him to make good his promise, but despite several demands, he continued reneging on his obligation, prompting her to file a case. This conduct fell short of the standard required of every lawyer.
• Integrity and Dignity of the Legal Profession: Canon 7 mandates all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Lawyers should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Atty. Del Prado's deception of complainant in the sale transaction violated this duty and warranted discipline.
• Defiance of Court and IBP Orders: Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice. His continued defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which cannot be tolerated. As a lawyer and officer of the court, he is duty bound to obey and respect court processes and 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.
• Penalty: The Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The IBP-CBD had recommended suspension for two years, but the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the report with modification and suspended Atty. Del Prado for five years. The Court imposed the five-year suspension, effective upon receipt of the decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be dealt with more severely.

• Practice of Law as a Privilege — The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers, as vanguards of the legal system, are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. The Court applied this principle to justify disciplining Atty. Del Prado for his deceit.
• Discipline for Conduct in Professional or Private Capacity — The Court shall not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for any conduct wanting in morality, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, whether committed in a professional or private capacity. This doctrine supported the imposition of discipline even though the dishonesty arose from a private sale transaction.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer is proscribed from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Atty. Del Prado violated this rule by deceiving complainant into signing the Deed of Absolute Sale and reneging on his promise to pay the full balance after notarization.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — All lawyers are mandated to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. They should refrain from any act that might lessen the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Atty. Del Prado's conduct violated this canon.
• Duty to Obey Court and IBP Orders — A lawyer is an officer of the court duty bound to obey and respect court processes and 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. Continued defiance of lawful orders is a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Del Prado's failure to file his comment and position paper and to attend the mandatory conference despite due notice warranted discipline.

• "The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing." — This passage states the foundational rationale for disciplining lawyers and supports the Court's imposition of sanctions for conduct wanting in morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
• "Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." — This passage identifies the specific provisions violated by Atty. Del Prado and is the canonical formulation of the ethical rules applied in the case.
• "In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short of the standard of the norm of conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and making her believe that he would pay in full the balance of the purchase price after he had the document notarized." — This passage applies the ethical standards to the facts and constitutes the core factual finding of deceit.
• "Moreover, Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice. His continued defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which cannot be tolerated." — This passage establishes the separate ground of defiance of lawful orders as an independent basis for disciplinary sanction.

• Bengco vs. Atty. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 16 (2012) — Cited for the rule that the Court shall not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for conduct wanting in morality, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, whether committed in a professional or private capacity; also cited in connection with the principle that continued defiance of lawful orders cannot be tolerated.
• Tomlin II vs. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 330 (2006) — Cited for the same principle that a lawyer may be disciplined for conduct committed in a professional or private capacity.
• Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912, 917 (1997) — Cited for the duty of lawyers to refrain from any act that might lessen the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
• Toledo vs. Atty. Abalos, 374 Phil. 15, 18 (1999) — Cited for the duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to acknowledge and respect the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their authority over him as a member of the bar.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found Atty. Del Prado violated this rule by deceiving complainant into signing the Deed of Absolute Sale and making her believe he would pay the full balance after notarization.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The Court found Atty. Del Prado violated this canon through the same dishonest conduct, which fell short of the standard required of every lawyer.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred. Del Castillo, J., was on official leave.