A.C. No. 2430 - AUGUST 1990 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 2430August 30, 1990Mauro P. Mananquil vs. Atty. Crisostomo C. Villegas G.R. No. 93219August 30, 1990Marcelino G. Rivera, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 93010August 30, 1990Nicencio Tan Quiombing vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 92397August 30, 1990Progresibong Samahan ng Manggagawa sa ITM (PSM-ITM) vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. 92234August 30, 1990University of Nueva Caceres vs. Ruben D. Torres G.R. No. 89606August 30, 1990Agustin Salgado vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89483August 30, 1990Republic of The Philippines vs. Hon. Eutropio Migrinio and Troadio Tecson G.R. No. 88403August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Edgar A. Timbang G.R. No. 88168August 30, 1990Traders Royal Bank vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 86743August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo R. Rizo G.R. No. 85383August 30, 1990Severo M. Lorenzo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 85246August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Maloloy-On G.R. Nos. 85053-60August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rafael A. Ortiz G.R. No. 84091August 30, 1990Heirs of Fabio Masangya vs. Diosdado Masangya G.R. No. 83903August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Octavio Juanga G.R. No. 82760August 30, 1990Felimon Manangan vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya G.R. Nos. 82643-67August 30, 1990Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 77029August 30, 1990Bienvenido Gevero vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 76415August 30, 1990Julio Baranda vs. Alfonso Baguio G.R. Nos. 75700-01August 30, 1990Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers G.R. No. 71217August 30, 1990Pacita A. Olanday vs. Intermediate Apellate Court G.R. Nos. 66102-04August 30, 1990Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 59979August 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Camilo Pareja G.R. No. 51544August 30, 1990Continental Cement Corporation Labor Union (NLU) vs. Continental Cement Corporation G.R. No. 50915August 30, 1990Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Company vs. Jacobo Clave G.R. No. 49549August 30, 1990Evelyn Chua-Qua vs. Jacobo C. Clave G.R. No. 75676August 29, 1990Manuel Co Keng Kian vs. Appellate Court G.R. No. 90974August 27, 1990Generoso Quiban vs. Walerico B. Butalid G.R. No. 87429August 27, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Regalado Bati G.R. No. 83491August 27, 1990Ma-Ao Sugar Central Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89097August 24, 1990Angelo L. Loyola vs. Government Service Insurance System G.R. No. 84663August 24, 1990Johnny D. Supangan, Jr. vs. Luis T. Santos G.R. No. 77950August 24, 1990Isidro V. Saba vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 70510August 24, 1990Elino Ong Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 67125August 24 1990Employees Union-Nube vs. Philippines Veterans Bank G.R. No. 69871August 24, 1990Anita Villa vs. Manuel Lazaro G.R. No. 59872August 24, 1990Mauro G. Meris vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. 89116August 22, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Calixto T. Tumale G.R. No. 88414August 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Ramon P. Rebullar G.R. No. 87743August 21, 1990Robert F. Ong vs. Maria Teresita Herrera, et al. G.R. No. 85904August 21, 1990Teodoro Medrana vs. office of the President G.R. No. 41607August 21, 1990Mariano T. Nasser vs. Serafin R. Cuevas G.R. No. 40203August 21, 1990Paterno J. Ouano vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 90492August 20, 1990Felisa D. Carandang vs. Ceferino E. Dulay G.R. No. 89557August 20, 1990Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 88753-54August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Anthony P. Kidagan G.R. No. 85177August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Moises W. Maspil, Jr. G.R. No. 84688August 20, 1990Foodmine, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 84084August 20, 1990Finman General Assurance Corporation vs. Abdulgani Salik G.R. No. 83542August 20, 1990Antonio S. Cohon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82558August 20, 1990Western Agro Industrial Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82135August 20, 1990Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 81120August 20, 1990Sps. Olib vs. Edelwina C. Pastoral G.R. No. 79619August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Bueza G.R. No. 78681August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Robert L. Camarao, et al. G.R. No. 76468August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Dolores G.R. No. 70568August 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Narciso Isip,Jr. G.R. No. 62415August 20, 1990Bicol Savings & Loan Association vs. Jaime Guinhawa G.R. No. 61565August 20, 1990Republic of the Philippines vs. Sofronio Sayo G.R. No. 58817August 20, 1990Philippine Virginia Tobacco Admin. vs. Ricardo P. Tensuan G.R. No. 56073 & 58819August 20, 1990Roberto Cosiquien vs. Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 55020August 20, 1990Commissioner of Customs vs. Campos Rueda Corporation G.R. No. 47280August 20, 1990The People of the Philippines vs. Donato V. Tarlac G.R. No. 39125August 20, 1990Gerundia Ibatan vs. Meneleo C. Melicor G.R. No. 29663August 20, 1990Gregorio Llantino vs. Co Liong Chong G.R. No. 76372August 14, 1990Alfonso Africa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 54040August 14, 1990S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. vs. Court of Appeal G.R. No. 90766August 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Felix T. Raquipo G.R. No. 89591-96August 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda G.R. No. 87959August 13, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino C. Mandal G.R. No. 87332August 13, 1990Eduardo Cruz, et al. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, et al. G.R. No. 83904August 13, 1990Severo Legaspi vs. Lucia Vda. De Dayot G.R. No. 82726August 13, 1990Cirilo M. Quilala vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 80682August 13, 1990Embassy Farms, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 50504-05August 13, 1990Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 52095-52116August 13, 1990Antolin Jariol, Jr., vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 49526August 13, 1990International Travel Service vs. the Honorable Minister of Labor G.R. No. 49154August 13, 1990Lucy Ramos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 47926August 13, 1990Romualdo F. Dumuk vs. Angel A. Daquigan G.R. No. 39447August 8, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Salangoste G.R. No. 87917August 7, 1990Juan B. Dulos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76742August 7, 1990 People of the Philippines vs. Oscar E. De Guzman G.R. No. 89885August 6, 1990Ust Faculty Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 89757August 6, 1990Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 87783August 6, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Adelina C. Castiller G.R. No. 87371August 6, 1990Del Monte Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 49999August 6, 1990Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 87597August 3, 1990Central Azucarera De Bais vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 84201August 3, 1990Norma S. Tirado vs. Lilia Sevilla, et al. G.R. No. 79168August 3, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo R. Cagalingan G.R. Nos. 78036-37August 3, 1990Cenon Martires vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 50147August 3, 1990Jose Ma. Ansaldo vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., G.R. No. 91501August 2, 1990Bernito Morales vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 89139August 2, 1990Romeo Z. Posadas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 86385August 2, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Barro Jr. G.R. No. 84523August 2, 1990Sps. Cipriano B. Pacubas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82189August 2, 1990Porfirio Auxilio Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Comm. G.R. No. 77083August 2, 1990Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 73726-28August 2, 1990Ernesto Andaya vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. Nos. 68265-66August 2, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Marapao The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Mauro P. Mananquil vs. Atty. Crisostomo C. VillegasMarcelino G. Rivera, Jr. vs. People of the PhilippinesNicencio Tan Quiombing vs. Court of AppealsProgresibong Samahan ng Manggagawa sa ITM (PSM-ITM) vs. Secretary of LaborUniversity of Nueva Caceres vs. Ruben D. TorresAgustin Salgado vs. Court of AppealsRepublic of The Philippines vs. Hon. Eutropio Migrinio and Troadio TecsonPeople of the Philippines vs. Edgar A. TimbangTraders Royal Bank vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo R. RizoSevero M. Lorenzo vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Felipe Maloloy-OnPeople of the Philippines vs. Rafael A. OrtizHeirs of Fabio Masangya vs. Diosdado MasangyaPeople of the Philippines vs. Octavio JuangaFelimon Manangan vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva VizcayaPhilippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionBienvenido Gevero vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJulio Baranda vs. Alfonso BaguioLopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free WorkersPacita A. Olanday vs. Intermediate Apellate CourtPhilippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Camilo ParejaContinental Cement Corporation Labor Union (NLU) vs. Continental Cement CorporationAssociated Anglo-American Tobacco Company vs. Jacobo ClaveEvelyn Chua-Qua vs. Jacobo C. ClaveManuel Co Keng Kian vs. Appellate CourtGeneroso Quiban vs. Walerico B. ButalidPeople of the Philippines vs. Regalado BatiMa-Ao Sugar Central Company, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsAngelo L. Loyola vs. Government Service Insurance SystemJohnny D. Supangan, Jr. vs. Luis T. SantosIsidro V. Saba vs. Court of AppealsElino Ong Reyes vs. Court of AppealsEmployees Union-Nube vs. Philippines Veterans BankAnita Villa vs. Manuel LazaroMauro G. Meris vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Calixto T. TumalePeople of the Philippines vs. Ramon P. RebullarRobert F. Ong vs. Maria Teresita Herrera, et al.Teodoro Medrana vs. office of the PresidentMariano T. Nasser vs. Serafin R. CuevasPaterno J. Ouano vs. Court of AppealsFelisa D. Carandang vs. Ceferino E. DulayPhilippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Anthony P. KidaganPeople of the Philippines vs. Moises W. Maspil, Jr.Foodmine, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionFinman General Assurance Corporation vs. Abdulgani SalikAntonio S. Cohon vs. Court of AppealsWestern Agro Industrial Corporation, et al. vs. Court of AppealsBanco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSps. Olib vs. Edelwina C. PastoralPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio BuezaPeople of the Philippines vs. Robert L. Camarao, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Antonio DoloresPeople of the Philippines vs. Narciso Isip,Jr.Bicol Savings & Loan Association vs. Jaime GuinhawaRepublic of the Philippines vs. Sofronio SayoPhilippine Virginia Tobacco Admin. vs. Ricardo P. TensuanRoberto Cosiquien vs. Honorable Court of AppealsCommissioner of Customs vs. Campos Rueda CorporationThe People of the Philippines vs. Donato V. TarlacGerundia Ibatan vs. Meneleo C. MelicorGregorio Llantino vs. Co Liong ChongAlfonso Africa vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtS.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. vs. Court of AppealPeople of the Philippines vs. Felix T. RaquipoPeople of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Sanz MacedaPeople of the Philippines vs. Marcelino C. MandalEduardo Cruz, et al. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, et al.Severo Legaspi vs. Lucia Vda. De DayotCirilo M. Quilala vs. Commission on ElectionsEmbassy Farms, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of AppealsPhilippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsAntolin Jariol, Jr., vs. SandiganbayanInternational Travel Service vs. the Honorable Minister of LaborLucy Ramos vs. Court of AppealsRomualdo F. Dumuk vs. Angel A. DaquiganPeople of the Philippines vs. Valentin SalangosteJuan B. Dulos vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Oscar E. De GuzmanUst Faculty Union vs. National Labor Relations CommissionAboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Adelina C. CastillerDel Monte Philippines vs. National Labor Relations CommissionCarmelo & Bauermann, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionCentral Azucarera De Bais vs. Court of AppealsNorma S. Tirado vs. Lilia Sevilla, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo R. CagalinganCenon Martires vs. Court of AppealsJose Ma. Ansaldo vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr.,Bernito Morales vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRomeo Z. Posadas vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Alberto Barro Jr.Sps. Cipriano B. Pacubas vs. Court of AppealsPorfirio Auxilio Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Comm.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ernesto Andaya vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Felipe MarapaoThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 2430 August 30, 1990
MAURO P. MANANQUIL,complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CRISOSTOMO C. VILLEGAS,respondent.
Geminiano M. Eleccion for complainant.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORTES,J.:
In a verified complaint for disbarment dated July 5, 1982, Mauro P. Mananquil charged respondent Atty. Crisostomo C. Villegas with gross misconduct or malpractice committed while acting as counsel of record of one Felix Leong in the latter's capacity as administrator of the Testate Estate of the late Felomina Zerna in Special Proceedings No. 460 before then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The complainant was appointed special administrator after Felix Leong died.
In compliance with a resolution of this Court, respondent filed his comment to the complaint on January 20, 1983. After complainant filed his reply, the Court resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a hearing conducted on May 15, 1985 by the investigating officer assigned to the case, counsel for the complainant proposed that the case be considered on the basis of position papers and memoranda to be submitted by the parties. Respondent agreed. Thus, the investigating officer required the parties to submit their respective position papers and memoranda, with the understanding that with or without the memoranda, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution after the expiration of 30 days. In compliance, both parties submitted their respective position papers; but no memorandum was filed by either party. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted.
In the pleadings submitted before the Court and the Office of the Solicitor General, complainant alleges that over a period of 20 years, respondent allowed lease contracts to be executed between his client Felix Leong and a partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, of which respondent is one of the partners, covering several parcels of land of the estate, i.e. Lots Nos. 1124, 1228, 2221, 2402, 3939, 3942 and 3957 of the Tanjay Cadastre, under iniquitous terms and conditions. Moreover, complainant charges that these contracts were made without the approval of the probate court and in violation of Articles 1491 and 1646 of the new Civil Code.
On the basis of the pleadings submitted by the parties, and other pertinent records of the investigation, the Solicitor General submitted his report dated February 21, 1990, finding that respondent committed a breach in the performance of his duties as counsel of administrator Felix Leong when he allowed the renewal of contracts of lease for properties involved in the testate proceedings to be undertaken in favor of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS without notifying and securing the approval of the probate court. However, the Solicitor General opined that there was no sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that respondent had allowed the properties to be leased in favor of his family partnership at a very low rental or in violation of Articles 1491 and 1646 of the new Civil Code. Thus, the Solicitor General recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) months with a warning that future misconduct on respondent's part will be more severely dealt with [Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor General, pp. 1-10;Rollo,pp. 37-46.Also,Complaint of the Solicitor General, pp. 1-3;Rollo,pp. 47-49].
As gleaned from the record of the case and the report and recommendation of the Solicitor General, the following facts are uncontroverted:
That as early as March 21, 1961, respondent was retained as counsel of record for Felix Leong, one of the heirs of the late Felomina Zerna, who was appointed as administrator of the Testate Estate of the Felomina Zerna in Special No. 460 on May 22, 1961;
That, a lease contract dated August 13, 1963 was executed between Felix Leong and the "Heirs of Jose Villegas" represented by respondent's brother-in-law Marcelo Pastrano involving, among others, sugar lands of the estate designated as Lot Nos. 1124, 1228, 2221, 2402, 3939, 3942 and 3957 of the Tanjay Cadastre;
That Felix Leong was designated therein as administrator and "owner, by testamentary disposition, of 5/6 of all said parcels of land";
That, the lifetime of the lease contract was FOUR (4) sugar crop years, with a yearly rental of TEN PERCENT (10%) of the value of the sugar produced from the leased parcels of land;
That, on April 20, 1965, the formal partnership of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS was formed amongst the heirs of Jose Villegas, of which respondent was a member;
That, on October 18, 1965, another lease contract was executed between Felix Leong and the partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, containing basically the same terms and conditions as the first contract, with Marcelo Pastrano signing once again as representative of the lessee;
That, on March 14, 1968, after the demise of Marcelo Pastrano, respondent was appointed manager of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS by the majority of partners;
That, renewals of the lease contract were executed between Felix Leong and HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS on January 13, 1975 and on December 4, 1978, with respondent signing therein as representative of the lessee; and,
That, in the later part of 1980, respondent was replaced by his nephew Geronimo H. Villegas as manager of the family partnership.
Under the above circumstances, the Court finds absolutely no merit to complainant's charge, and the Solicitor General's finding, that respondent committed acts of misconduct in failing to secure the approval of the court in Special Proceedings No. 460 to the various lease contracts executed between Felix Leong and respondent's family partnership.
Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court, a judicial executor or administrator has the right to the possession and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of administration. He may, therefore, exercise acts of administration without special authority from the court having jurisdiction of the estate. For instance, it has long been settled that an administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the estate even without prior judicial authority and approval [SeeFerraris v. Rodas, 65 Phil. 732 (1938); Jocson de Hilado v. Nava, 69 Phil. 1 (1939); San Diego, Sr. v. Hombre, G.R No. L-19265, May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA 165].
Thus, considering that administrator Felix Leong was not required under the law and prevailing jurisprudence to seek prior authority from the probate court in order to validly lease real properties of the estate, respondent, as counsel of Felix Leong, cannot be taken to task for failing to notify the probate court of the various lease contracts involved herein and to secure its judicial approval thereto.
Nevertheless, contrary to the opinion of the Solicitor General, the Court finds sufficient evidence to hold respondent subject to disciplinary sanction for having, as counsel of record for the administrator in Special Proceedings No. 460, participated in the execution in 1975 and 1978 of renewals of the lease agreement involving properties of the estate in favor of the partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, of which respondent is a member and in 1968 was appointed managing partner.
By virtue of Article 1646 of the new Civil Code, the persons referred to in Article 1491 are prohibited from leasing, either in person or through the mediation of another, the properties or things mentioned in that article, to wit:
x x x x x x x x x
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal have been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any government owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property or rights in litigation or levied upon on execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment andshall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law
x x x x x x x x x
[Article 1491 of the new Civil Code; Emphasis supplied.]
The above disqualification imposed on public and judicial officers and lawyers is grounded on public policy considerations which disallow the transactions entered into by them, whether directly or indirectly, in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, or the peculiar control exercised by these individuals over the properties or rights covered [See Rubias v. Batiller, G.R. No. L-35702, May 29, 1973, 51 SCRA 120; Maharlika Publishing Corporation v. Tagle, G.R. No. 65594, July 9, 1986, 142 SCRA 553; Fornilda v. The Branch 164, RTC Fourth Judicial Region, Pasig, G.R. No. 72306, October 5, 1988, 166 SCRA 281 and January 24, 1989, 169 SCRA 351].
Thus, even if the parties designated as lessees in the assailed lease contracts were the "Heirs of Jose Villegas" and the partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, and respondent signed merely as an agent of the latter, the Court rules that the lease contracts are covered by the prohibition against any acquisition or lease by a lawyer of properties involved in litigation in which he takes part. To rule otherwise would be to lend a stamp of judicial approval on an arrangement which, in effect, circumvents that which is directly prohibited by law. For, piercing through the legal fiction of separate juridical personality, the Court cannot ignore the obvious implication that respondent as one of the heirs of Jose Villegas and partner, later manager of, in HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS stands to benefit from the contractual relationship created between his client Felix Leong and his family partnership over properties involved in the ongoing testate proceedings.
In his defense, respondent claims that he was neither aware of, nor participated in, the execution of the original lease contract entered into between his client and his family partnership, which was then represented by his brother-in-law Marcelo Pastrano. And although he admits that he participated in the execution of subsequent renewals of the lease contract as managing partner of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, he argues that he acted in good faith considering that the heirs of Filomena Zerna consented or acquiesced to the terms and conditions stipulated in the original lease contract. He further contends that pursuant to the ruling of the Court inTuason v.Tuason[88 Phil. 428 (1951)] the renewal contracts do not fall within the prohibition of Articles 1491 and 1646 since he signed the same as a mere agent of the partnership.
Respondent's contentions do not provide sufficient basis to escape disciplinary action from this Court.
It taxes this Courts imagination that respondent disclaims any knowledge in the execution of the original lease contract between his client and his family partnership represented by his brother-in-law.ℒαwρhi৷Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that respondent himself had knowledge of and allowed the subsequent renewals of the lease contract. In fact, he actively participated in the lease contracts dated January 13, 1975 and December 4, 1978 by signing on behalf of the lessee HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS.
Moreover, the claim that the heirs of Filomena Zerna have acquiesced and consented to the assailed lease contracts does not militate against respondent's liability under the rules of professional ethics. The prohibition referred to in Articles 1491 and 1646 of the new Civil Code, as far as lawyers are concerned, is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and confidential association [Sotto v. Samson, G.R. No. L-16917, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 733]. Thus, the law makes the prohibition absolute and permanent [Rubias v. Batiller,supra]. And in view of Canon 1 of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Sections 3 & 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, whereby lawyers are duty-bound to obey and uphold the laws of the land, participation in the execution of the prohibited contracts such as those referred to in Articles 1491 and 1646 of the new Civil Code has been held to constitute breach of professional ethics on the part of the lawyer for which disciplinary action may be brought against him [See Bautista v. Gonzalez, Adm. Matter No. 1625, February 12, 1990). Accordingly, the Court must reiterate the rule that the claim of good faith is no defense to a lawyer who has failed to adhere faithfully to the legal disqualifications imposed upon him, designed to protect the interests of his client [See In re Ruste, 70 Phil. 243 (1940);Also,Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343 (1923)].
Neither is there merit in respondent's reliance on the case ofTuason v.Tuason[supra.] It cannot be inferred from the statements made by the Court in that case that contracts of sale or lease where the vendee or lessee is a partnership, of which a lawyer is a member, over a property involved in a litigation in which he takes part by virtue of his profession, are not covered by the prohibition under Articles 1491 and 1646.
However, the Court sustains the Solicitor General's holding that there is no sufficient evidence on record to warrant a finding that respondent allowed the properties of the estate of Filomena Zerna involved herein to be leased to his family partnership at very low rental payments. At any rate, it is a matter for the court presiding over Special Proceedings No. 460 to determine whether or not the agreed rental payments made by respondent's family partnership is reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the estate properties.
Considering thus the nature of the acts of misconduct committed by respondent, and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds sufficient grounds to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
WHEREFORE,finding that respondent Atty. Crisostomo C. Villegas committed acts of gross misconduct, the Court Resolved toSUSPENDrespondent from the practice of law for four (4) months effective from the date of his receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that future misconduct on respondent's part will be more severely dealt with. Let copies of this Resolution be circulated to all courts of the country for their information and guidance, and spread in the personal record of Atty. Villegas.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.