Legal Ethics

Imbuido vs Manganon
A.C. No. 200, March 31, 1962

FACTS:
Petitioner sold 10 parcels of land to Mrs. Maria E. Gonzales with an
option to repurchase. But until the date stipulated in the contract,
Dec. 31, 1948, petitioner failed to exercise his right of redemption
and so Mrs. Gonzales consolidated her ownership and a new
certificate of title was issued in her name with the previous
encumbrance of some of the parcels sold to her. Petitioner
engaged the services of respondent a year after to negotiate with
Mrs. Gonzales over the redemption of the lands although no
mention was made regarding attorney’s fees. Petitioner raised
P4,600 from the people to whom the 7 lands were encumbered with
the understanding that their previous contract be converted to one
of absolute sale after. Respondent succeeded with the negotiation
and Mrs. Gonzales agreed to their payment of P4,056.00, the rest
was kept by the respondent as attorney’s fees. Petitioner however
discovered that the respondent repurchased the lands in his own
name and disposed of the 10 parcels of land in favor of other
people thereby depriving petitioner of the 3 parcels which were not
previously encumbered.

Petitioner filed an action against the respondent to recover plus

damages which was subsequently approved by the Court of First
Instance in Pangasinan giving him a year to recover the lands,
which he questioned for irregularity.

Respondent, for his defense, denied having been engaged by the

petitioner as his lawyer. Furthermore, respondent alleges that, it were
the people to whom the 7 parcels of land were encumbered were
his clients and that they initially approached the petitioner to inform
him that his action of selling the lands after having them
encumbered can get him suspended, as he was then the municipal
mayor. It was then the petitioner asked by respondent to exert his
influence to raise the money to be able to redeem the lands from
Mrs. Gonzales in favor of his clients. As a special defense,
respondent charged petitioner with malice and unjustifiable motive
in filing this case against him. However, upon further perusal, it was
found out that Mrs. Gonzales named the Certificate of Title in
respondents name upon his request and that his claim of not
knowing petitioner personally is false according to a letter he sent to
Mrs. Gonzales where it appears that he has written it in his capacity
as lawyer to the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s action is irregular and breached the
professional duty towards petitioner.

RULING:
Yes, it is not only irregular but a serious breach of professional duty
towards petitioner whose trust respondent disregarded and
violated.

It is true that respondent claims that he acted the way he did

because he was then representing not the petitioner but the persons
to whom the lands had been previously encumbered. Even if this
may be true, the fact however remains that the vendor of the land
in the sale to Mrs. Gonzales was the petitioner and common sense
dictates, as respondent should know, that the reconveyance should
be made in the name of the vendor. The fact that respondent has
afterwards executed different deeds of conveyance of the 8
parcels of land to several persons among whom were those to
whom they had been previously encumbered for the amounts they
had respectively advanced cannot erase the irregularity he has
committed for that is contrary to the ordinary course of law and the
understanding he had with his client. Nor can respondent justify the
fact that he kept for himself the two parcels of land involved in the
transaction under the pretext that he had them placed in his name
in payment of his attorney's fees, for there is nothing in the evidence
that may justify such claim.

Any advantage derived by a lawyer as a result of abuse of the

client’s confidence generally inures to the benefit of the client.