ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.C. No. 3614 January 13, 1999]
MORENA M. ADRILIANA vs. ATTY. LORENZANA BERNARDINO-VILLANUEVA.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.
Administrative Case No. 3614 (Morena M. Adriliana vs. Atty. Lorenzana Bernardino-Villanueva.)
In the present administrative case, complainant Morena M. Adrillana denounces the professional conduct of respondent Atty. Lorenzana Bernardina-Villanueva.
Complainant avers that in April 1983, complainant and her husband, Godofredo Adriliana, bought from the heirs of her deceased grandfather, Ireneo Cruz, a parcel of unregistered land with an area of 5,092 square meters, situated in Lagundi, Brgy. Muzon, Taytay, Rizal. Complainant secured the services of respondent, a townmate and former classmate in the elementary school, to prepare and accomplish the necessary deed of sale, have it registered with the registry of deeds secure the corresponding tax declaration in their names, cause the survey of the land, secure the survey plan and technical description, pay the BIR taxes and file the registration proceedings in court.1 [Rollo, vol. 1, p.1.]
As compensation for the services and expenses, respondent received the total amount of P22,500.00 for which five (5) receipts were issued to her. Every time complainant would inquire about the status of the papers, respondent always assured her that everything was going on smoothly and that she had filed the deed of sale with the registry of deeds.2 [Ibid., p. 2.]
When Godofredo Adriliana returned from abroad in 1985, he insisted on having a copy of the deed of sale. Respondent gave him an incomplete, unnotarized and unregistered photocopy of the deed. Upon verification with the Register of Deeds of Rizal, complainant found out that the deed was not registered. Despite demand, respondent failed to comply with her undertaking.3 [Ibid., p. 3.]
Respondent, on the other hand, claims that she took pains to have the deed of sale signed by all the heirs but complainants and the vendor caused so much delay in having the document signed. When she was having the registration of the sale, the Register of Deeds advised her to cause the publication of the documents in a newspaper of general circulation as the property was originally owned by Ireneo Cruz who was already deceased. While the original agreement was only for the preparation and notarization of the deed of sale, she went out of her way to do many things in favor of the complainant. She checked the voluminous records of the Bureau of Lands, asked for the approved plan, paid the real estate taxes and caused the publication of the deed of sale.
The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline through investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, required respondent to comment on the charges and held several hearings, during which the parties were able to present their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. Subsequently, the commissioner rendered his report and recommendation dated April 8, 1996, which became the basis for the resolution adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on May 17, 1997, which reads as follows:
"RESOLUTION NO. XII-97-18
Adm. Case No. 3614
Morena A. Adriliana vs.
Atty. Lorenza Villanueva
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVED, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case, hereinmade part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, respondent Atty. Lorenza Villanueva is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and ordered to return to the complainant the amount of P5,000.00 within ten (10) days from the receipt of notice. Failure on her part to comply will result on her "CONTINUOUS SUSPENSION."
The investigating commissioner declared that there is no doubt in his mind that respondent undertook all the task mentioned in the complaint and failed to accomplish them. The reason for this was that respondent was not prepared to accomplish the task she assumed. At the very outset, she made the mistake of preparing a deed of sale covering the parcel of land owned by the late Ireneo Cruz with his heirs as vendors and the complainant as vendee. She should have realized that before the preparation of the deed of sale, the estate of the late Ireneo Cruz should have been settled first after the corresponding estate and real estate taxes had been paid. Before these were accomplished, the vendors or the heirs could not sell the subject property to complainant.4 [Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, Adm. Case No. 3614, April 14, 1996, pp. 5-6.]
Commissioner Fernandez went on to say:
"While this failure does not appear to be deliberate or intentional, respondent should nonetheless be punished or sanctioned for violating the legal prescription that 'a lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which she know or should know that she is not qualified to render.' (Rule 18.01, Code of Professional Responsibility)." 5 [Ibid., p. 6.]
We agree with Commissioner Fernandez' report and recommendation, approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
The full protection of the client's interest requires no less than a mastery of the applicable law and the facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment.6 [Javellana vs. Lutero, G.R. No. 23956, July 21, 1967.]
The lawyer should recognize his lack of competence for a particular task and the disservice he would do his client if he undertook the task. If he is consulted in such circumstances he should either decline to act or obtain his client's instructions to retain, consult or collaborate with a lawyer who is competent in that field.7 [Report of IBP Committee, p. 96.]
It goes without saying that respondent, by her actuations constituting violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, must be subjected to disciplinary measure for the good of the entire membership of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT the recommendation of the investigating commissioner and accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS respondent Atty Lorenzana Bernardina-Villanueva from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months effective upon notice. She is DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount of P5,000.00, within ten (10) days from notice, failure of which she shall remain in suspension until the full amount is returned to the complainant.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
