Pale - Navarro vs Solidum

NAVARRO & PRESBITERO VS. ATTY. SOLIDUM (2014)

 A.C. No. No. 9872 FACTS: Hilda S. Presbitero and Natividad P. Navarro filed a disbarment case against  Atty.  Atty. Ivan Ivan M. Solidm! Solidm! "r. "r.

Presbitero and #er ot#er dag#ter! Ma. $#eresa P. %lo! engaged in t#e services of Solidm for eac# of t#eir o&n cases concerning land. %lo! 'rsant to #er land regi regist stra rati tion on case case!! conv convin ince ced d Nava Navarr rro o to fina financ nce e t#e t#e e('e e('ens nses es.. Nava Navarro rro 'aid 'aid P#'2)) P#'2))!))) !))) for t#e registr registratio ation n e('ens e('enses! es! bt later later learned learned t#at t#e 'ro'erty 'ro'erty &as already registered in t#e name of one $eodoro %lo. Mean&#ile! Solidm obtained t&o loans of P#'*!)))!))).)) from Navarro and one loan of P#'*!)))!))).)) to finance #is sgar trading bsiness! secring t#em &it# 'ostdated c#ec+s and drafting a M,A in eac#. Solidm &as able to 'ay com'lainants a total of P#'9))!))).)). $#ereafter! #e failed to 'ay eit#er t#e 'rinci'al amont or t#e interest t#ereon. $#e c#ec+s issed by Solidm Solidm to t#e com'lain com'lainants ants cold no longer longer be negotia negotiated ted becase becase t#e acconts acconts again against st &#ic# &#ic# t#ey t#ey &ere &ere dra&n dra&n &ere &ere alread already y close closed. d. -#en -#en com'l com'lain ainan ants ts calle called d Solidms attention! #e 'romised to 'ay t#e agreed interest for Se'tember and ,ctober  2))/ bt as+ed for a redction of t#e interest for t#e scceeding mont#s. Com'lainants alleged t#at Solidm indced t#em to grant #im loans by offering very #ig# interest rates. He also 're'ared and signed t#e c#ec+s &#ic# trned ot to be dra&n dra&n again against st #is #is sons sons accon acconts ts.. Com'l Com'lai aina nants nts frt# frt#er er alleg alleged ed t#at t#at res'o res'onde ndent nt deceived t#em regarding t#e identity and vale of t#e 'ro'erty #e mortgaged becase #e s#o&ed t#em a different 'ro'erty from t#at &#ic# #e o&ned. Presbitero frt#er  alle allege ged d t#at t#at res' res'on onde dent nt mort mortga gage ged d #is #is 2/01 2/01s sa are re1m 1met eter er 'ro' 'ro'er erty ty to #er #er for  for  P#'*!)))!))).)) bt #e later sold it for only P#'*3)!))).)). $#e I4P1C45 fond t#at res'ondent &as gilty of violating 6le *.)* of t#e Code of Professional 6es'onsibility for committing t#e follo&ing acts * signing dra&n dra&n c#ec+s against against t#e accont accont of #is son as if t#ey &ere from from #is o&n accont: 2 misre'resenting misre'resenting to Navarro Navarro t#e identity identity of t#e lot #e mortgaged mortgaged to #er: 0 misre' misre're rese senti nting ng to Presb Presbite itero ro t#e t#e tre tre vale vale of t#e 2/01s 2/01s are are1me 1mete terr lot lot #e mortgaged to #er: ; cons'iring cons'iring &it# %lo %lo to obtain t#e loans from com'lainants: com'lainants: 3 agreeing or 'romising 'romising to 'ay *)< interest on #is loans alt#og# alt#og# #e +ne& t#at it &as e(orbitant: and / failing failing to 'ay #is loans becase becase t#e c#ec+s c#ec+s #e issed &ere &ere dis#ono dis#onored red as t#e acconts &ere already closed. ISSUE: -#et#er res'ondent violated t#e Code of Professional 6es'onsibility. HELD: 6es'ondent violated at least for 'rovisions 6le *.)*! Canon */! 6le */.)*! and 6le */.); of t#e CP6. Solidm &as disbarred from t#e 'ractice of la&.

6le *.)*. 1 A la&yer s#all not engage in nla&fl! dis#onest! immoral or deceitfl condct. 6es'ondent agreed to 'ay a #ig# interest rate on #is loan from t#e com'lainants. He drafted t#e M,A. %et! &#en #e cold no longer 'ay #is loan! #e sog#t to nllify t#e same M,A #e drafted on t#e grond t#at t#e interest rate &as nconscionable. It &as also establis#ed t#at res'ondent res'ondent mortgaged a 2/01sare1meter 2/01sare1meter 'ro'erty to Presbitero Presbitero for P*!)))!))).))! P*!)))!))).))! bt #e later sold t#e 'ro'erty for only P*3)!))).))! P*3)!))).))! s#o&ing t#at #e

deceived #is client as to t#e real vale of t#e mortgaged 'ro'erty. 6es'ondents allegation t#at t#e sale &as eventally rescinded did not distract from t#e fact t#at #e did not a''rise Presbitero as to t#e real vale of t#e 'ro'erty. 6es'ondent failed to refte t#at t#e c#ec+s #e issed to #is client Presbitero and to Navarro belonged to #is son! Ivan =arcia Solidm III &#ose name is similar to #is name. He only claimed t#at com'lainants +ne& t#at #e cold no longer o'en a crrent ban+ accont! and t#at t#ey even sggested t#at #is &ife or son isse t#e c#ec+s for  #im. Ho&ever! &e are inclined to agree &it# t#e I4P1C45s finding t#at #e made com'lainants believe t#at t#e accont belonged to #im. In fact! res'ondent signed in t#e 'resence of Navarro t#e first batc# of c#ec+s #e issed to Navarro. 6es'ondent sent t#e second batc# of c#ec+s to Navarro and t#e t#ird batc# of c#ec+s to Presbitero t#rog# a messenger! and com'lainants believed t#at t#e c#ec+s belonged to acconts in res'ondents name. CAN,N */. 1 A >A-%?6 SHA>> H,>5 IN $6@S$ A>> M,N?%S AN5 P6,P?6$I?S , HIS C>I?N$ $HA$ MA% C,M? IN$, HIS P,SS?SSI,N. 6le */.)* B A la&yer s#all accont for all money or 'ro'erty collected or received for or  from t#e client. 6es'ondent #ad been negligent in 'ro'erly acconting for t#e money #e received from #is client! Presbitero. Indeed! #is failre to retrn t#e e(cess money in #is 'ossession gives rise to t#e 'resm'tion t#at #e #as misa''ro'riated it for #is o&n se to t#e 'redice of! and in violation of t#e trst re'osed in #im by! t#e client. 6le */.);. 1 A la&yer s#all not borro& money from #is client nless t#e clients interests are flly 'rotected by t#e natre of t#e case or by inde'endent advice. Neit#er  s#all a la&yer lend money to a client e(ce't! &#en in t#e interest of stice! #e #as to advance necessary e('enses in a legal matter #e is #andling for t#e client. -#ile res'ondents loan from Presbitero &as secred by a M,A! 'ostdated c#ec+s and real estate mortgage! it trned ot t#at res'ondent misre'resented t#e vale of t#e 'ro'erty #e mortgaged and t#at t#e c#ec+s #e issed &ere not dra&n from #is accont bt from t#at of #is son. 6es'ondent eventally estioned t#e terms of t#e M,A t#at #e #imself 're'ared on t#e grond t#at t#e interest rate im'osed on #is loan &as nconscionable. inally! t#e c#ec+s issed by res'ondent to Presbitero &ere dis#onored becase t#e acconts &ere already closed. $#e interest of #is client! Presbitero! as lender in t#is case! &as not flly 'rotected. 6es'ondent violated 6le */.); of t#e Code of Professional 6es'onsibility! &#ic# 'resmes t#at t#e client is disadvantaged by t#e la&yers ability to se all t#e legal maneverings to renege on #is obligation./ In #is dealings &it# #is client Presbitero! res'ondent too+ advantage of #is +no&ledge of t#e la& as &ell as t#e trst and confidence re'osed in #im by #is client. 6es'ondent failed to live ' to t#e #ig# standard of morality! #onesty! integrity! and fair  dealing reired of #im as a member of t#e legal 'rofession. Instead! res'ondent em'loyed #is +no&ledge and s+ill of t#e la& and too+ advantage of #is client to secre nde gains for #imself t#at &arrants #is removal from t#e 'ractice of la&.

Is condct nder 6le *.)* confined to t#e 'erformance of a la&yers 'rofessional dtiesD No. A la&yer may be disci'lined for mi!"#$%! !"mmi'$ 'i' i# i *"+'i"#,- " *i,' !,*,!i/ . $#e test is &#et#er #is condct s#o&s #im to be &anting in moral c#aracter! #onesty! 'robity! and good demeanor! or &#et#er it renders #im n&ort#y to contine as an officer of t#e cort.