Wilfredo T. Garcia, Complainant, v. Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez, Respondent | Adm. Case No. 6422 | 28 August 2007

Facts:

Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC
Case No. 05-M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title
over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This was granted by the court.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order dated 21 February 2002,
directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate of title.

The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. Hearings were scheduled.
On 19 September 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of
Sarmiento, filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.

Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not
withdrawn from the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for
misrepresenting to the court that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and
omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel of record. According to him, his
attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of
respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount
to unfair harvesting of the fruit of complainant's labors since 1996.

It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina

Jarvia (Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo,

Zenaida, Wilson, Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her

husband prior to her relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit

executed by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the

services of respondent and that they recognized complainant as their only counsel of

record.

In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and

Wilson Ku who sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted

to retain his services. They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a

hearing scheduled the next day. Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to

immediately file an entry of appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted that

it was an honest mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of

misrepresenting himself to the court.

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his

report and recommendation dated 8 January 2004, found respondent guilty of

misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

(CPR) when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he was

representing. He recommended that respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with

a reminder that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more

severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its

resolution passed on 27 February 2004.

Issue:

Was the respondent violated the Canons 8 and 10, and Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held:

Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.

Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.

Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.

The court ordered the respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.