THE Supreme Court penalized two lawyers for various infractions—one was disbarred while the other was suspended from law practice for one year.
The Court disbarred Ryan Rey L. Pasagui and ordered him to return with interest the proceeds of a loan amounting to P1 million which he appropriated in violation of the agreement to use the money for the transfer of title of a piece of property under his client’s name.
The Court granted complainant Eufemia A. Camino’s Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of its Per Curiam Decision, dated Sept. 20, 2016 finding respondent Pasagui guilty of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
The decision also ordered respondent’s disbarment and for him to return the loan proceeds of P1 million with interest as well as all relevant documents to complainant.
The Court ruled that since it had stated in its Sept. 30, 2016 Decision that it was final and executory, execution was already a matter of right and the SC Clerk of Court should issue the Writ of Execution prayed for.
But inasmuch as it does not have a sheriff to execute its decision and considering that complainant resides in Tacloban City, the Court directed the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City to execute the money judgment against the respondent.
The Court also suspended for one year a lawyer who acted as counsel for conflicting interests and refused to return two certificates of title entrusted to him by his client.
The Court found Rufino Lizardo guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17, and Rules 15.03 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for one year upon the finality of the decision.
The Court also ordered Lizardo to return Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3900 and 13866 to complainant Silvestra Medina within 15 days from notice of the decision, and warned him that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court further ordered that copies of the decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
The Court held Lizardo violated Rule 15.03 providing that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.”
It found that Silvestra entrusted the owner’s duplicates of the said TCTs to respondent, who is her counsel and that of her sister Alicia (complainant Santos’ late mother) in a partition case involving the properties covered by the said titles.
Lizardo, however, claimed complainants sold their shares in the said properties to a certain Renate Martinez and refused to return the TCTs because complainants did not secure the written consent of Martinez.
He also claimed Martinez engaged his services concurrently with complainant Silvestra and Alicia.
The Court found no credible proof that Lizardo was from the beginning engaged to represent Silvestra, Alicia, and Martinez as their common counsel.
It held that the subsequent engagement by Martinez of Lizardo as counsel against Silvestra and Santos in the matter of the possession of the subject titles amounted to a conflict of interest and required written consent of all the parties concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts, a requirement he clearly failed to procure.
