Silvestre Medina and Santos Loraya v. Atty.
Rufino
Lizarado
January 31, 2017, AC No. 10533
FACTS:
Complainant Silvestra, because of her advanced
age, allegedly entrusted the owner's duplicates of Transfer
Certificates of Titles (TCTs) to respondent. 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. However, respondent claimed that
Silvestra entrusted the TCTs to him because they sold
their shares in in favor of a certain Renato Martinez
(Martinez). He refused to return the subject TCTs because
complainants did not secure the written consent of
Martinez.
Respondent notes that complainants only had a
one-fourth share in the subject lots based on a
compromise agreement. 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.
Upon the death of Alicia, her heirs executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale wherein said heirs
appear to have agreed to convey in favor of Martinez and
his spouse all their shares.
Complainants averred that they did not notice
that the subject lots were sold together with another
subject lots. Santos claims that they did not read the
Extrajudicial Settlement since they trusted Atty. Lizardo
to sell only one parcel of land covering 1,000 square
meters to Martinez. Hence, complainant informed the
Investigating Commissioner of their letter terminating the
services of Atty. Lizardo as counsel for total loss of trust
and confidence and prayed for the latter's disbarment.
The Investigation Commissioner recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
two years. 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Lizardo violated the Canon
of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
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:
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.
This Court has explained the test in determining
whether conflicting interests are being represented in this
wise:
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.
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 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.
The Court observes that the complaint for
partition in the RTC of Makati 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. 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.
Respondent 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:
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.
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.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
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 WARNShim 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.

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.

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.

However, we refrain from passing upon the

finding of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty.
Lizardo was guilty of deceit. 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.
Torres-Gomez v. Codilla
668 SCRA 600

FACTS:
On 30 November 2009, Richard I. Gomez
(Gomez) filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Leyte
under the Liberal Party of the Philippines. On even date,
private respondent Codilla Jr. filed his Certificate of
Candidacy for the same position under Lakas Kampi
CMD.
On 6 December 2009, Buenaventura O. Juntilla
(Juntilla), a registered voter of Leyte, filed a Verified
Petition for Gomezs disqualification with the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division on
the ground that Gomez lacked the residency requirement
for a Member of the House of Representatives. It was
granted and Gomez was disqualified.
Gomez filed a Manifestation with the
COMELEC En Banc, alleging that, without necessarily
admitting the allegations raised by Juntilla, he
was accepting the Resolution with finality, in order to
enable his substitute to facilitate the filing of the
necessary documents for substitution.
On 5 May 2010, petitioner Lucy Marie
Torres-Gomez filed her Certificate of Candidacy as
substitute for the position of representative of the Fourth
Congressional District for the Province of Leyte vice
Gomez, her husband.
On 6 May 2010, Juntilla filed a
Counter-Manifestation with the COMELEC En Banc
alleging the invalidity of the proposed substitution of
Gomez by petitioner. COMELEC En Banc allowed a
substitue candidate for Gomez.
On 9 May 2010, Juntilla filed an Extremely
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the above
COMELEC Resolution No. 8890. Pending resolution of
his motion, the national and local elections were
conducted as scheduled. Petitioner won. Codilla filed a
motion to suspend the proclamation of of Substitute
Candidate Lucy Marie T. Gomez.
On 12 May 2010, petitioner was proclaimed the
winning candidate for the congressional seat of the Fourth
District of Leyte. On 21 May 2010, private respondent
Codilla filed an election protest against HRET.
 On 2 July 2010, petitioner filed her Verified
Answer to Codillas Election Protest questioning the
alleged lack of the required Verification and praying for
its dismissal. On 8 July 2010, Codilla filed a Reply to
petitioners Verified Answer.
In an Order issued by public respondent HRET,
the instant case was set for preliminary conference on 2
September 2010. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
Election protest because it is insufficient in form.
On 9 September 2010, the HRET resolved the
issue by saying that the protest cannot be considered
insufficient in form, considering that the examination of
the original copy of the protest filed before the Tribunal
had revealed the existence of the required verification.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and it was
denied. She later filed a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner claims that there was a material defect
in the Verification of the Election Protest, a requirement
explicitly provided for in Rule 16 of the 2004 Rules of
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET
Rules). Petitioner also claims that what is in question in
the Election Protest is her qualification as a Member of
the House of Representatives, and not the number of
votes cast. Her qualification is allegedly not a proper
ground for an election protest, in which the issues should
be the appreciation of ballots and the correctness and
number of votes of each candidate.
Codilla claims that the date of the Verification
was a mere innocuous mistake or oversight, which did not
warrant a finding that the Verification was defective;
much less, fatally defective. He claims he should not be
faulted for any alleged oversight that may have been
committed by the notary public. Further, the same
argument holds true with respect to the absence of the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Compliance Number of the notary public, as well as the
overdue Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) indicated in the
notarial stamp.
Codilla also argues that the issues in the Election
Protest do not pertain to petitioners qualification, but to
the casting and counting of votes. He claims that his
Election Protest contests the declaration by the Board of
Canvassers that the 101,250 votes should be counted in
favor of petitioner and be credited to him as these should
have instead been declared as stray votes.
The HRET claims that it did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of Codillas
Election Protest despite an alleged absence/defect in the
verification. After all, an unverified petition differs from
one which contains a defective verification, such as in
this case. A defective verification is merely a formal
defect which does not affect the jurisdiction of the
tribunal. In any case, the summary dismissal of an
Election Protest, as well as the allowance of its
amendments in matters of form, is sanctioned by the
HRET Rules.
The HRET further argues that it did not commit
grave abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of the
Election Protest. The issue raised in the Election Protest
was the validity of petitioners proclamation, in view of
her alleged invalid substitution. This is a matter that is
addressed to the sound judgment of the HRET.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the HRET acted with grave
abuse of discretion
RULING:
The Petition is dismissed for failure to show
any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET.
While the existence of the Verification is not
disputed, petitioner notes three alleged defects. First, the
Election Protest was filed on 21 May 2010, but the
Verification was allegedly subscribed and sworn to on 21
May 2009.Second, Codilla, a resident of Ormoc City,
could not have possibly appeared personally before the
notary public in Quezon City. Third, in the notarial stamp,
the date of expiration of the notarial commission was
handwritten while all other details were stamped; the PTR
indicated was issued in 2005; there was no MCLE
Compliance Number as required by Bar Matter No.
1922. Petitioner claims that due to the lack of a proper
verification, the Election Protest should have been treated
as an unsigned pleading and must be dismissed.
With respect to the date of the notarization, it is
clear that the stamped date 2009 was a mere mechanical
error. In fact, the notary public had superimposed in
writing the numbers 10 and countersigned the alteration.
Thus, this error need not be overly magnified as to
constitute a defect in the Verification.
With respect to the second alleged defect, there
is a presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed with respect to the jurat of the Verification,
wherein the notary public attests that it was subscribed
and sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned
thereon.[16] Official duties are disputably presumed to
have been regularly performed. Thus, contrary to
petitioners allegation, there was no need for Codilla to
attach his plane ticket to prove he flew from Ormoc City
to Manila.[17]
With respect to the third alleged defect, the fact
that some portions of the stamp of the notary public were
handwritten and some were stamped does not, in itself,
indicate any defect. Further, Bar Matter No. 1922 merely
requires lawyers to indicate in all pleadings filed before
the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of
issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, whichever is applicable for the
immediately preceding compliance period. Clearly, the
regulation does not apply to notarial acts. With respect to
the PTR number which was dated 5 years prior to the date
of notarization, the deficiency merely entails the potential
administrative liability of the notary public.[20]
In any case, there was no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the HRET in denying petitioners
Motion to Dismiss the Election Protest and directing
Codilla to have his Verification properly notarized.
It has been consistently held that the verification
of a pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional,
requirement. This requirement is simply a condition
affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance
therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective.
Further, no grave abuse of discretion could be
attributed to the HRET. An election protest proposes to
oust the winning candidate from office. It is strictly a
contest between the defeated and the winning candidates,
based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities.
Its purpose is to determine who between them has
actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and
is entitled to hold the office.The foregoing considered, the
issues raised in Codillas Election Protest are proper for
such a petition, and is within the jurisdiction of the
HRET.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for
Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction is likewise DENIED. Resolution
Nos. 10-282 and 10-482 of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.