A.C. No. 12298 - Concurring Opinion

A.C. No. 12298, September 1, 2020,
♦ Decision, Per Curiam
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Dissenting and Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, J. Reyes, Jr., [J]

I concur with the ponencia. Atty. Reymelio M. Delute (Atty. Delute) should be disbarred.

The essential functions of lawyers are the representation of others and the protection of their rights. Attorneys-at-law act as agents who prosecute or defend their clients' interests. Equipped with their knowledge of the legal system, lawyers owe the highest fidelity to their clients' cause. This is because the attorney-client relationship is "imbued with utmost trust and confidence."1

To effectively discharge this responsibility, any form of conflict of, interest should be avoided at all times, with the client's interest placed above the lawyer's. As the primary goal of lawyering is to ensure that the client receives what is due to them by law, remuneration for work done should only be secondary. Here, respondent failed to discharge his responsibility as a lawyer.

The complainant, Felipe D. Laurel (Laurel), and his wife engaged the services of respondent Atty. Delute to assist them in their claim to recover a parcel of land. To supposedly achieve this, they were told by Atty. Delute to sign a document in English —a language they did not understand.2 As this would put them at a disadvantage, complainant requested that his daughter, who understood English, be allowed to accompany them during the signing. However, Atty. Delute insisted that only complainant and his wife should come.3

Complainant and his wife did not have a hand in the preparation of the document. They did not negotiate its terms and were not aware of its contents. They initially refused to sign and asked for Atty. Delute to explain its contents, but they were coerced by the latter to just sign the document.4 Caught between their doubts and the insistence of their counsel, they ultimately relied on Atty. Delute who promised that they would be able to collect rent on the lot. They were later given P300,000.00, which they believed to be the payment owed to them. From this, Atty. Delute took P100,000.00.5

As it turns out, the document that complainant and his wife signed was a Compromise Agreement containing a waiver of their claims over the lot. Further, the agreement also contained a stipulation granting Atty. Delute a perpetual right of way over the lot. Complainant and his wife only found out after their daughter came home from Manila and explained the contents of what they had signed.6

Atty. Delute abused the confidence his clients placed in him. He left them in the dark and purposefully kept them unaware of the nature of the transactions he brokered. While lawyers, as agents, are entrusted to manage the interests of their clients,7 this does not grant them the license to transact with others at the expense of their clients' interests. Definitely, lawyers should not use this authority for their personal benefit.8

Atty. Delute sold his client's cause by making them sign a waiver of their claims, contrary to what his clients wanted, which was to prosecute their claim over the lot. This could not have escaped Atty. Delute's mind, as he was aware that complainant had previously engaged the services of another counsel for the recovery of the land and the issuance of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award before he took over.9 Worse, Atty. Delute took advantage of the fact that his clients did not understand the document he made them sign, which allowed him to derive personal benefit from the transaction at his client's expense.

As noted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. Delute willfully manipulated complainant into executing the Compromise Agreement.10 He also profited P100,000.00 from the P300,000.00 paid to his clients.11 This deceitful conduct by a lawyer to his clients is deserving of disbarment.

Respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01;12 Canon 15, Rule 15.03;13 and Canon 1714 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by exhibiting dishonest and deceitful conduct when he manipulated his clients into signing a document which they believed was in furtherance of their cause. When his clients expressed doubts as they could not understand the language in which the document was written, respondent not only failed to explain its contents, he also coerced them to sign the document.

Citing Medina v. Lizardo,15 the ponencia refuses to rule on the validity of the Compromise Agreement given the allegations of deceit in securing complainant's consent. Medina imposed the lighter penalty of suspension due to insufficiency of evidence to hold the lawyer liable for deceitful conduct:

As previously mentioned, the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Lizardo allowed himself to be used by Martinez to supposedly defraud Silvestra and the heirs of Alicia and therefore, held that Atty. Lizardo also violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, we refrain from passing upon the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty. Lizardo was guilty of deceit in allegedly inducing Silvestra and the heirs of Alicia into selling their interest in all three lots covered by the subject TCTs in the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale when their purported intention was to sell only the parcels covered by TCT No. 13866. The matter of fraud in the execution of said agreement which will have implications on its validity and legal effects must be first threshed out by the parties in the appropriate proceedings.16

While I agree that the Compromise Agreement's validity cannot be settled in an administrative case, Medina should not be used to stop this Court from exercising its disciplinary authority over lawyers until deceit can be proven in a separate civil case. After all, disbarment proceedings are sui generis and are not akin to civil or criminal cases. A disbarment proceeding "is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts."17 It is not a trial or a suit, but an investigation by this Court into its officers' conduct.18

The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is to protect public interest, as these proceedings determine their fitness to enjoy the privileges of being an attorney. They are not meant to settle rights and controversies between parties as in ordinary cases.19 Disciplinary cases are distinct, and proceed independently of civil or criminal cases, since a lawyer's administrative liability "stands on grounds different from those in the other cases."20

To determine if a lawyer breached the ethics of his or her profession, this Court is guided by the standards laid down in the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the Lawyer's Oath to which all lawyers are bound. One of the most, if not the most, important responsibility of a lawyer is to refrain from dishonest and deceitful conduct.21 Violating this is enough to hold a lawyer liable.

Facts established during the course of disbarment proceedings which prove violations of the canons or the oath may be admitted and are sufficient for this Court to rule on a lawyer's liability. In Luna v. Galarrita22 where the attorney entered into a compromise agreement without his client's consent, this Court found his conduct deceitful and abusive of his client's trust and confidence. Luna held the lawyer administratively liable based on the facts established before the Investigating Commissioner, even after the client himself subsequently abandoned the issue.23

In this case, regular proceedings were conducted before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, where the affidavit-complaint was filed. Atty. Delute was given several opportunities to dispute the allegations in the complaint: he was twice given the chance to file his answer, and finally, to file his verified position paper. However, he failed to do all of these.24 Subsequently, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that he deceived and manipulated his clients.25 All findings have basis on record, and both parties have been given the opportunity to be heard. Hence, a separate proceeding to establish the deceit by Atty. Delute, such as a civil case, is unnecessary. In any case, the issue here is his deceitful conduct, and not the validity of the Compromise Agreement.

This is not a simple case of a lawyer deceiving his client. It is aggravated by the fact that Atty. Delute deliberately took advantage of his clients' circumstances and their inability to properly defend themselves. This scheme is revealed when he rejected his clients' pleas to allow their daughter to accompany them as a translator so they could understand the document they would sign. When his clients hesitated and asked him to explain the contents, he refused and threatened them into signing, saying he does not "defend a dead person."26 He sold his client's cause by making them waive their claims—the complete opposite of what they had wanted. To add insult to injury, he even profited from this.

Clients come to lawyers with faith that their legal problems would be solved and that their interests would be protected. Clients may not even be aware of their rights or lack the skills to defend themselves. Lawyers step in to fill in this gap. As such, they must be careful in handling the confidence reposed in them.

This role is even more pronounced when lawyers represent the disadvantaged—those who have difficulty accessing their legal rights because of personal circumstances like socioeconomic status and level of education, among others. Lawyering, in a much broader sense, is designed to bring those at the margins closer to their rights under the law. Atty. Delute did the opposite of this.

Clearly, he betrayed the very purpose of being an attorney for his clients. His deceitful and opportunistic actions render him unfit to continue being a lawyer.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISBAR Atty. Reymelio M. Delute and to order his name be STRICKEN off from the roll of attorneys.