DIGEST: Zalamea v. Atty. De Guzman, A.C. No. 7387, November 7, 2016

Disbarment

MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. ZALAMEA,

v.

ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA, QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW FIRM

A.C. No. 7387

Third Division

November 07, 2016

Peralta, J.

                                       

Facts:

The petitioners, Zalamea brothers, acquired a property in Scout Limbaga, Quezon City from their mother’s estate with the help of Atty. De Guzman. Said property, however, is mortgaged to BDO.  The property was subsequently foreclosed due to the failure of the Zalameas to pay their loan. The Zalamea then seek the advice of Atty. De Guzman to reacquire the property. The BDO, through Atty. De Guzman, agreed to sell the property for P20 Million, and with a 10% downpayment. Due to lack of funds of the Zalameas, Atty. De Guzman’s wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the P2 Million downpayment. Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly installments and all in all, paid a total of P13 Million.

Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De Guzman turned sour. The Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts which they had advanced, while the Zalamea brothers claimed sole ownership over the property. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client's property which was subject of litigation under Article 1491 of the Civil Code.

Issue:

Whether the prohibition under Art. 1491 for lawyers apply in the case.

Ruling:

No. The SC held that the prohibition does not apply in the case.

The Court dismissed the Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr. for utter lack of merit.

According to the SC, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property purchased was not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's properties or interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession. There exists not even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been involved in any litigation in which De Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True, they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their mother's estate, which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it shown that De Guzman's law firm had taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez property.

The prohibition [in Article 1491] which rests on considerations of public policy and interests is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and confidential relationship with him.

De Guzman could not have possibly exerted such undue influence, as a lawyer, upon the Zalameas, as his clients.