A.C. No.

7478, January 11, 2017

EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY,

KARIN LITZ P. ZERNA, ARIEL G. RONQUILLO, AND CESAR D.
BUENAFLOR, Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. (Alicias),
against Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay (Macatangay), Atty. Karin Litz P. Zerna (Zerna),
Atty. Ariel G. Ronquillo (Ronquillo), and Atty. Cesar D. Buenaflor (Buenaflor) for
violation of the Lawyer's Oath or Code of Professional Responsibility gross neglect
of duty, and gross ignorance of the law.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Facts

The present administrative case stemmed from an initial complaint filed by Alicias,
an Associate Professor in the College of Education of the University of the
Philippines against Dean Leticia P. Ho (Ho) of the same College for two counts of
violation of Republic Act No. 6713.1 The Civil Service Commission (CSC), through its
Office of Legal Affairs (CSC-OLA), then headed by Director IV Florencio P. Gabriel,
Jr., referred Alicias' complaint against Ho to its Regional Office in the National
Capital Region (CSC-NCR). In its 26 June 202 Resolution, the CSC-NCR found that
the complaint was insufficient to support a prima facie case against Ho. Alicias'
complaint against Ho was dismissed.

On 12 July 2002, Alicias filed a petition for review2 with the CSC. The CSC asked
the CSC-NCR, to comment. Pending the resolution of the petition for review,
Macatangay replaced Director Gabriel, Jr. as Officer-in-Charge of the CSC-OLA. In a
letter3 dated 5 May 2003, Alicias followed up his petition for review and notified the
CSC of his new residential address in Cainta, Rizal. On 26 April 2004, Alicias wrote
a second letter4 to follow-up his petition for review. On 9 August 2004, the CSC, as
a collegial body, deliberated on the draft resolution prepared by the CSC-OLA. The
draft resolution, however, was returned for re-writing.

On 30 August 2004, Zerna succeeded Macatangay as Officer-in-Charge of the CSC-

OLA. A third follow-up was made by Alicias on 16 September 2004 through a
handwritten note.5 Alicias claimed that he never received any reply from the CSC-
OLA. On 28 October 2004, the CSC released a Resolution6 dismissing Alicias'
petition for review for lack of merit.7 As CSC Commissioner, Buenaflor was one of
the signatories of the Resolution.

Alicias did not receive a copy of the Resolution. The records8 show that it was
mistakenly sent to his old address in Quezon City. Unaware that the petition for
review was already resolved, Alicias moved for its resolution on 16 February 2006,
followed by another letter on 10 April 2006.9 Ronquillo, who assumed as Director IV
of the CSC-OLA, received Alicias' Motion for Resolution. Ronquillo replied that the
petition for review was already dismissed on 28 October 2004.

On 26 April 2006, Alicias received through registered mail a copy of the CSC's
Resolution. Alicias filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on 1 August
2006.10 Commissioner Buenaflor was one of the signatories of the Resolution.
Alicias did not appeal the CSC's Resolution with the Court of Appeals.

On 11 April 2007, Alicias filed the present administrative complaint before the Court
accusing Macatangay, Zerna, Ronquillo, and Buenaflor of violation of the Lawyer's
Oath or Code of Professional Responsibility, gross neglect of duty, and gross
ignorance of the law. Alicias alleged that respondents, by reason of their respective
offices in the CSC, participated directly or indirectly in writing or approving the
Resolution. Respondents allegedly (1) did not conduct a careful evaluation of the
records; (2) did not hear the arguments of both partes; (3) ignored uncontroverted
documentary evidence adduced by him; (4) erroneously applied established
jurisprudence; (5) denied him due process of law by not furnishing him a copy of
the CSC's Order directing the CSC-NCR to comment and a copy of the CSC-NCR
comment; and (6) willfully did not give him a copy of the Resolution of his petition
for review.

In their Joint Comment11 dated 16 August 2007, respondents argued that Alicias

was not denied due process because after the denial of his motion for
reconsideration, he still had the available remedy of filing a petition for review on
certiorari12 with the Court of Appeals. Respondents contended that no clear and
convincing evidence had been offered to show bad faith or ulterior motive on their
part.

In a Reply13 dated 30 August 2007, Alicias claimed that the present administrative

complaint is not an alternative remedy to seek judicial relief since it is founded on a
different cause of action. Alicias contended that bad faith is not an element to
sustain an action for gross ignorance of the law. He argued that the failure to follow
prescribed procedure constitutes malum prohibitum. Hence, proof of mere violation
is sufficient to sustain a conviction without need of proving ill motive.

On 8 October 2007, the Court, through the Second Division, referred the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Ruling of the IBP

In a Report and Recommendation14 dated 20 October 2010, IBP Commissioner

Maria Editha A. Go-Binas (Commissioner Go-Binas) recommended that the
administrative complaint against Macatangay, Zerna, Ronquillo, and Buenaflor be
dismissed for lack of merit.15 Commissioner Go-Binas found that the complaint was
baseless and Alicias failed to show sufficient proof in support of his claims.16

In Resolution No. XX-2011-28817 passed on 10 December 2011, the IBP Board of

Governors adopted and approved Commissioner Go-Binas' Report and
Recommendation, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

In Resolution No. XX-2013-73818 issued on 21 June 2013, the IBP Board of

Governors likewise denied the motion for reconsideration19 filed by Alicias. The
Board found no cogent reason to reverse its initial findings since the matters raised
were reiterations of those which had already been taken into consideration.

Hence, Alicias filed this petition.20

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Ruling of the Court

The Court disagrees with the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors. The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint. The
administrative complaint must be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Republic Act No. 677021 (R.A. No. 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act
of 1989," prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 15,
paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 6770 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 15. Powers, Function and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have
the following powers, functions and duties:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency
of Government, the investigation of such cases. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative
disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any
government official when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.22 The Office of the Ombudsman is the government agency
responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government
officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
service by the Government to the people."23 In Samson v. Restrivera,24 the
Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or
employee during his or her tenure. Consequently, acts or missions of public officials
relating to the performance of their function as government officials are within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.25 cralawred

In Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales,26 the Court held that the IBP has no
jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses
involving their official duties.27 In the present case, the allegations in Alicias'
complaint against Atty. Macatangay, Atty. Zerna, Atty. Ronquillo, and Atty.
Buenaflor, which include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2) failure to
evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of CSC
Orders and Resolutions, all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their
official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no
jurisdiction over Alicias' complaint. These are acts or omissions connected with their
duties as government lawyers exercising official functions in the CSC and within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior28 or the Office of the
Ombudsman.29

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay,

Atty. Karin Litz P. Zerna, Atty. Ariel G. Ronquillo, and Atty. Cesar D. Buenaflor
is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever
appropriate action the Ombudsman may wish to take with respect to the possible
administrative and criminal liability of respondents Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay,
Atty. Karin Litz P. Zerna, Atty. Ariel G. Ronquillo, and Atty. Cesar D. Buenaflor.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017

SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainant, v.ATTY.

RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Complainants Silvestra Medina (Silvestra) and her nephew Santos Medina Loraya
(Santos) filed a Complaint1 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo (Atty. Lizardo).
Complainants allege that Silvestra, because of her advanced age, entrusted the
owner's duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 13866 and 3900 to
Atty. Lizardo. However, since complainants are not the only owners of the
properties covered by said TCTs, and other heirs were asking for the original
duplicate copies, complainants went to the residence of Atty. Lizardo and requested
the return of said TCTs on March 5, 2011. Atty. Lizardo refused to turn over the
TCTs to the complainants. Complainants submitted the following prayer in their
Complaint:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Commission, after hearing, THAT:

1. Respondent turnover to the custody of complainant SILVESTRA

MEDINA the above-mentioned original duplicate of certificate of titles
in the presence of the Honorable Commission or its duly authorized
representative;chanrobleslaw

2. Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are also prayed
for.2

In his Answer,3 Atty. Lizardo primarily argues that the Commission on Bar Discipline
has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint since it involves an action for
specific performance.

Atty. Lizardo admitted that he is the counsel of Silvestra and her sister, the late
Alicia Medina (Alicia), who is also the mother of Santos. According to Atty. Lizardo,
Silvestra entrusted TCTs No. 13866 and 3900 to him sometime in 1987 because
Silvestra, Santos, and Alicia sold their shares in lots 456, 457 and 458 in favor of a
certain Renato Martinez (Martinez). Atty. Lizardo claims that he refused to return
the subject TCTs because complainants did not secure the written consent of
Martinez.

To prove his allegation, Atty. Lizardo presented the Malayang Salaysay4 of Silvestra

dated April 10, 1981 which states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. Na, ako ay isang kamagari sa sa [sic] dalawang lagay na lupa na nasa Cupang,
Muntinlupa, Rizal (Metro-Manila) na ang nasabing dalawang lagay na lupa ay kilala
sa mga sumusunod:

"Lot 457 Muntinlupa Estate (LRC) Record No. 6137 situated at Cupang, Muntinlupa,
Rizal, with an area of 664 Sqms."

"Lot 458 Muntinlupa Estate (LRC) Record No. 6137 situated at Cupang, Muntinlupa,
Rizal with and area of 1427 Sqms."

na ang nasabing mga lagay na lupa sa itaas nito ay sinasakop ng isang Titul,
"Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23866 ng Talaan ng mga kasulatan sa Rizal[.] ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The Malayang Salaysay was signed by Silvestra and notarized by Atty. Lizardo.

Atty. Lizardo also presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay5 of the late Alicia Medina
dated May 24, 1982 stating that she received the amount of P10,000.00 as initial
payment for the sale of the property.

Atty. Lizardo notes that complainants only had a one-fourth share in the subject
lots. Atty. Lizardo presented the Decision6 dated May 16, 1962 of the Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Rizal based on a compromise agreement wherein Silvestra and
Alicia were awarded one-fourth share in Lot 456 (described in TCT No. 3900) and
Lots 457 and 458 (described in TCT No. 13866). Complainants allegedly sold this
one-fourth share to Martinez, but their co-owners resisted the transfer of the titles
to said properties, forcing Silvestra and Alicia to file a Complaint for
Partition,7 docketed as Civil Case No. 18400, on September 4, 1987. According to
Atty. Lizardo, Martinez supposedly shouldered all the legal expenses for the
partition to protect his interest, as evidenced by Martinez's affidavit8 dated May 10,
2011. Upon the death of Alicia, her heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement With
Sale9dated July 16, 1992 wherein said heirs appear to have agreed to convey in
favor of Martinez and his spouse all their shares in TCTs No. 3900 and 13866
covering Lots 456, 457 and 458. The pertinent part of the Extrajudicial Settlement
reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That, we, together with SILVESTRA MEDINA, owner of the other [o]ne (112) half
portion of the above-mentioned [o]ne [f]ourth (1/4) portion of the estate of ALICIA
MEDINA LORAYA by these presents have decided to sell the (sic) our share, interest
and participation over the parcels of land described above:

That, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, receipt of which in full satisfaction is
acknowledged and confessed, hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto and in
favor of Spouses RENATO MARTINEZ and PURIFICACION LOMEDA MARTINEZ our
share, interest and participation in the above-mentioned Three (3) parcels of land,
known as Lot 456, covered by TCT 3900 and Lot 457 and 458, covered by TCT
13866 free from any liens and encumbrances except those required by law. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Lizardo avers that when complainants learned that the sheriff was
implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 18400, they demanded
the return of the two TCTs.

During the Mandatory Conference on July 21, 2011, Santos testified that he and
Silvestra did not notice that Lot 456 covered by TCT No. 3900 was sold together
with Lots 457 and 458 covered by TCT No. 13866. Santos claims that they did not
read the Extrajudicial Settlement since they trusted Atty. Lizardo to sell only one
parcel of land10 covering 1,000 square meters to Martinez.11

In a Letter-Appeal/Manifestation, complainants informed the Investigating

Commissioner of their letter terminating the services of Atty. Lizardo as counsel in
Civil Case No. 18400 for total loss of trust and confidence and prayed for the
latter's disbarment.

When the original Investigating Commissioner was elected president of his IBP
chapter, the case was reassigned to a new commissioner who set another hearing
for mandatory conference on November 4, 2011. At the November 4, 2011
mandatory conference, complainants were present while a paralegal appeared for
Atty. Lizardo and brought a verified medical certificate attesting that Atty. Lizardo
was indisposed. After noting the rule that failure of any party to appear at the
mandatory conference despite notice is considered a waiver of his/her right to
participate in the proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner proceeded with the
mandatory conference and gave complainants an opportunity to clarify matters not
tackled or discussed in the mandatory conference held on July 21, 2011. The
parties were thereafter directed to file their respective verified position papers.12

In the Commissioner's Report13 dated August 3, 2012, the Investigation

Commissioner recommended that Atty. Lizardo be suspended from the practice of
law for two years, since the former believed that disbarment was too harsh a
penalty under the circumstances. On March 21, 2013, the Board of Governors of
the IBP issued a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thereby suspending Atty.
Lizardo from the practice of law for two years.

The Investigating Commissioner observed that Martinez stated in his Affidavit dated
May 10, 2011 that Silvestra sold her share in Lots 456, 457 and 458 to him, and
incorporated into said affidavit a copy of Silvestra's Malayang Salaysay dated April
10, 1981. In the Malayang Salaysay, however, Silvestra mentioned only two parcels
of land: Lot 457 with an area of 664 square meters, and Lot 458 with an area of
1,427 square meters. According to the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Lizardo
should have known this because he was the one who prepared and notarized
Silvestra's Malayang Salaysay.

The Commissioner's Report adopted in the IBP Board of Governors Resolution

thereby found Atty. Lizardo to have represented conflicting interests, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As above stated, during the mandatory conference, Mr. Santos Medina Loraya
stated the following:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Mr. Santos Medina Loraya: Paanong mangyaring naiipit e sya ang legal counsel po
namin. Siguro kami ang dapat niyang protektahan.
(TSN dated July 21, 2011, page 38) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The question thrown by the complainants during the said conference is very
alarming as far as the undersigned is concerned.

Complainants firmly believe that as their lawyer, Atty. Lizardo should protect their
interests and legal rights. Respondent should not favor other persons except his
clients. It would appear that as admitted by Renata Martinez, he was the one who
shouldered all legal expenses including that of the respondent. Respondent should
not have allowed the same to happen because definitely, a conflict of interest might
arise later on, as what is happening now. Respondent is lawyering for the
complainants and at the same time, lawyering for the interest of Renata
Martinez.14 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The Investigating Commissioner further observed that Atty. Lizardo did not merely
represent conflicting interests, but even actively participated in deceiving his
clients, the complainants in the case at bar:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Not only that, respondent allowed himself to be used by Renata Martinez in

deceiving the complainants to make it appear that they sold three (3) parcels of
land. The intention to deceive the complainants and the heirs is very evident
because as stated by the complainants, the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale was
signed during the wake of Alicia Medina. Why would an Extra-judicial Settlement
with Sale be executed and signed at the time of the wake of Alicia Medina? Why is
the respondent and Renato Martinez in a hurry to have the document signed?

Probably, the heirs, at the time were still grieving for the loss of Alicia Medina. The
timing of the preparation and signing is highly questionable as far as the
undersigned is concerned.15(Underscoring omitted.) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On Atty. Lizardo's allegation that the Commission on Bar Discipline does not have
jurisdiction over the complaint, the report adopted by the IBP Board of Governors
held:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It is the position of the respondent that the Commission on Bar Discipline has no
jurisdiction on the subject controversy. The undersigned begs to differ. The
Commission on Bar Discipline, as the investigating body of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction over all cases involving lawyers.
The jurisdiction of this Commission covers transactions committed either in their
personal or professional capacity. x x x.16
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Lizardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration,17 alleging that he did not represent
conflicting interests. He claims that Silvestra, Alicia and Martinez all engaged his
services to file the partition case, but agreed that the named complainants shall
only be Silvestra and Alicia in accordance with the decision of the CFI of Pasay City.
As the share of Silvestra and Alicia were already sold to Martinez, it was Martinez
who shouldered the expenses and appeared in every hearing. According to Atty.
Lizardo, Silvestra, Alicia, and Martinez had the same interest in the filing of the
partition case.

Atty. Lizardo denied that the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale was signed during
the wake of Alicia. He claims that the preparation, execution, signing and
notarization of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale were all done in his office in
Alabang, Muntinlupa City in the presence of the parties and Martinez on July 16,
1992, which was already beyond the period of the wake of Alicia who died
sometime in May 1992. Atty. Lizardo further alleges that in said meeting on July
16, 1992, Silvestra and the heirs of Alicia, including Santos himself, expressed that
the sale includes Lot 456 covered by TCT No. 3900.18

Complainants filed their Comment19 expressing that Atty. Lizardo's allegations that

Martinez was also his client and that Silvestra and the heirs of Alicia appeared
before him on July 16, 1992 are fabrications and mere afterthoughts.

On March 21, 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued a Resolution20denying
Atty. Lizardo's Motion for Reconsideration with a modification further directing Atty.
Lizardo to return TCTs No. 3900 and 13866 to complainant Silvestra.

This Court resolves to adopt with modification the Resolutions of the IBP Board of
Governors.

The main charge against Atty. Lizardo is his alleged violation of Rule 15.03, Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts[.] ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This Court has explained the test in determining whether conflicting interests are
being represented in this wise:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two

or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is
the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency
of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.21 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In another case, we held that:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would
be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or
former clients. It also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a former
client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of
the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. This rule applies
regardless of the degree of adverse interests. What a lawyer owes his former
client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing
anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously
represented him. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the
same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former
client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.22 (Citations omitted;
emphasis supplied.) ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In the case at bar, it is undeniable that complainants Silvestra and Santos, on one
hand, and Martinez, on the other, have conflicting interests with regard to the
disputed property, particularly Lot 456 covered by TCT No. 3900 which
complainants assert they never sold to Martinez. Atty. Lizardo now finds himself
arguing against the ownership by Silvestra and Santos of their shares in the
disputed property, which is the very legal position he was bound to defend as their
counsel in the partition case.

Atty. Lizardo, however, tries to find justification for the situation by implying in his
pleadings that Martinez engaged his services concurrently with Silvestra and Alicia
in the filing of the partition case, and that they all had the same interest in the
outcome of the case: the eventual transfer of the shares of Silvestra and Alicia to
Martinez.

The Court observes that the complaint for partition23 in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati, Branch 143 is the only case filed in court concerning the subject
properties, and Atty. Lizardo is the counsel of record therein of Silvestra and Alicia.
There is no mention of Martinez in said Complaint. As argued by complainants, if
Martinez was indeed also Atty. Lizardo's client in the partition case, he should have
included Martinez as one of the plaintiffs in order to protect the latter's interests.
Likewise, after the death of Alicia and the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement
of her estate, Atty. Lizardo had yet another chance to implead Martinez to protect
his interest as sole owner of the shares of Silvestra and Alicia in TCTs No. 13866
and 3900, but again failed to do so for no discernible reason. These inactions make
it hard for us to believe Atty. Lizardo's claim that Martinez engaged his services
concurrently with Silvestra and Alicia in the filing of the partition case. There is no
credible proof on record that Atty. Lizardo was from the beginning engaged to
represent Silvestra, Alicia and Martinez as their common counsel.

In his Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated
March 21, 2013, Atty. Lizardo admits that after the signing of the Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale he received instructions from Martinez to hold the TCTs
allegedly for the transfer in the latter's name of the interest of Silvestra and Alicia's
heirs in the subject properties. This subsequent engagement by Martinez of Atty.
Lizardo as counsel against Silvestra and Santos in the matter of the possession of
the subject titles amounts to conflict of interest and requires the written consent of
all the parties concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts, a requirement he
clearly failed to procure.

As counsels for Silvestra and Alicia, Atty. Lizardo is required to deliver the property
of his client when due or upon demand, and mandated to always be loyal to them
and vigilant to protect their interests, in accordance with the following provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Lizardo's withholding of the TCTs entrusted to him by his clients to protect
another purported client who surreptitiously acquired his services despite a conflict
of interest is therefore a clear violation of several provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. For this reason, we also uphold the grant of
complainants' prayer for the return of the subject titles which they turned over to
Atty. Lizardo for safekeeping. In any event, the return of said TCTs will not unduly
prejudice Martinez who may cause his adverse claim to be duly annotated thereon.

As previously mentioned, the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Lizardo

allowed himself to be used by Martinez to supposedly defraud Silvestra and the
heirs of Alicia and therefore, held that Atty. Lizardo also violated Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.24 However,
we refrain from passing upon the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that
Atty. Lizardo was guilty of deceit in allegedly inducing Silvestra and the heirs of
Alicia into selling their interest in all three lots covered by the subject TCTs in the
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale when their purported intention was to sell only
the parcels covered by TCT No. 13866. The matter of fraud in the execution of said
agreement which will have implications on its validity and legal effects must be first
threshed out by the parties in the appropriate proceedings.

The IBP recommends the suspension of Atty. Lizardo from the practice of law for a
period of two years. This is the same penalty in Villanueva v. Atty. Gonzales,25  one
cralawred

of the cases cited in the Commissioner's Report. We observe, however, that

in Villanueva, the lawyer not only withheld the TCT entrusted to him by his client,
but likewise avoided her for three years, and did not give her any information about
the status of her case or respond to her request for information. He likewise
repeatedly failed to file an answer to the complaint and to appear at the mandatory
conference as required by the IBP. The Court held that these actions demonstrate
his high degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect for the IBP and its
proceedings.26 We find that the conduct of Atty. Lizardo, while reprehensible and
unworthy of a member of the Bar, is not quite at par with that in Villanueva.
Moreover, considering that we find insufficient basis to hold Atty. Lizardo liable for
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 at this point in time, a
lighter penalty is in order. Suspension from the practice of law for one year is
sufficient in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo GUILTY of

violating Canons 16 and 17, and Rules 15.03 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
one year effective upon finality of this Decision, ORDERS him, under pain of
contempt, to return TCTs No. 3900 and 13866 to complainant Silvestra Medina
within 15 days from notice of this Decision, and WARNS him that a repetition of
the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to respondent Atty. Lizardo's personal record as attorney. Likewise,
copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

3. A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366               February 4, 2015

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-RTJ]
JILL M. TORMIS, Complainant, 
vs.
JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES, Respondent.

4.A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-08-246-RTC), March 06, 2018 -
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE WINLOVE M.
DUMAYAS, BRANCH 59, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

5. A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600**               February 1, 2011

VIVIAN T. DABU, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, Complainant, 

vs.
EDUARDO RODEN E. KAPUNAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 51 and Acting Judge, Branch
52,* MA. THERESA CORTEZ, LEILA O. GALO, Both Court Stenographers, SUZETTE O.
TIONGCO, Legal Researcher, All of Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Guagua,
Pampanga, Respondents.

6. January 10, 2018

A.C. No. 8208

RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant 

vs.
ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent

7. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 

                                Complainant,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370 
April 25, 2003
          
-versus-

JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL 

COURT OF KORONADAL, SOUTH COTABATO, 
                                                    Respondent.

8. AM NO. RTJ-96-1336 JULY 25, 1996

JOCELYN TALENS-DABON V. JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO