LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA VS. ATTY. SAMUEL SM.

LEZAMA
A.C. No. 11483, October 03, 2017

Lawyer-client relationship is one of principal-agent rlationship; therefore, the

client controls the substantive aspect of the case, the content of his/her
testimony and to enter into compromise, but that is not the case in CERILLA VS.
LEZAMA (A.C. No. 11483, October 3,2017) when herein respondent Atty. Samuel SM.
Lezama entered into a compromise agreement with the defendant in the unlawful
detainer case and stated that the plaintiff, who is the complainant in the case at
bar, was willing to sell the property to the defendant in the amount of P350,000.00
even if the complainant did not instruct or authorize him to sell the property, and
he merely acted upon his own belief. As the SPA granted to him by the complainant
did not contain the power to sell the property, respondent clearly acted beyond the
scope of his authority in entering into the compromise agreement wherein the
property was sold to the defendant Carmelita S. Garlito prejudicing his client and
which has caused his client and her co-owners to file further cases to recover
their property that was sold due to respondent's mistake.

As such, the Court was convinced that the respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which states that, "A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law
and jurisprudence." The obligations of lawyers as a consequence of their Canon 5
duty have been reiterated in Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla, thus: It is imperative
that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply
with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their
obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing
mistakes. As also found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent also violated
Canons 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that, "A lawyer
shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his client." Lastly, he violated Canon 17 of CPR which states that, "A lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him."

Therefore, respondent Atty. Samuel
Canons 5, 15 and 17 of the Code of
suspended from the practice of law
that a repetition of the same or a
severely.
SM. Lezama was found to be guilty of violating
Professional Responsibility. Hence, he was
for a period of two (2) years and sternly warned
similar offense shall be dealt with more

Even though he denied the allegation that he never touched the said deposit in an
account created in his name by the defendant for the payment of the contested
property in the amount of P350,000.00 and his contention that the said amount was
under the custody of the MTC of Sibulan, we couln't just simply erase the suspicion
that he was somehow working with the defendant in a deceitful plot.It was further
corroborated by the fact that being a lawyer, he should have known more than any
other that real properties do not depreciate, they increase their value as time
progress. His contention that he acted in good faith and in equity is not just
acceptable him being a lawyer supposed to have his loyalty to his client's cause
paramount to his personal interest.

For me, I just need to embed in my mind and heart the consequences in dealing with
people and interest in contradiction with that of my client. I must honor my word
and loyalty to the one who trusted and engaged my services. I must not fail him for
all means. This is the duty of a lawyer to his client and this mindset is enough
for me not to commit that same mistake as in this case.

In my opinion, the Code of Professional Responsibility already did its part to

guide and motivate us to the right path of being a noble person in the form of
being a lawyer. What we lack is the dedication to serve this cause and it is
incumbent upon us to this part.