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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE v. CUENCA

-
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. TOMAS CUENCA, MARCELINA CUENCA, MILAGROS CUENCA, BRAMIE T. TAYACTAC, and MANUEL D. MARANON, JR. G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013 FACTS: Marañon filed a complaint with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in the RTC against the Cuencas and Tayactac for the collection of a sum of money and damages. The RTC granted the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment conditioned upon the posting of a bond of P1 Million executed in favor of the Cuencas. Marañon posted bond in the amount of P1 Million issued by Stronghold Insurance. Enforcing the writ of preliminary attachment, the sheriff levied upon the equipment, supplies, materials and various other personal property belonging to Arc Cuisine, Inc., to which the respondents where stockholders. But the levied properties were ordered by the CA to be delivered back to the Cuencas and Tayactac due to the damages sustained from the enforceme...
Read more

DIGEST: George Bongalon v. People of the Philippines

-
Image
GEORGE BONGALON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013 FACTS: The petitioner, George Bongalon, was charged of child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. He allegedly struck Jayson, a minor, with his hand and slapped him on the face after the latter threw stones at George's daughter. The RTC found George guilty as charged. This was affirmed by the CA, but the said court modified the penalty. The petitioner elevated the matter to the SC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, ROC. ISSUE: 1.             Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy. 2.             Whether the petitioner is guilty of child abuse, under RA 7610. RULING: 1.             No. The SC held that the petitioner adopted the wrong r...
Read more