Facts:

The case revolves around ADELINA C. ADRIAS (complainant) and ATTORNEY SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR. (respondent), with the decision rendered on December 30, 1982. The complainant alleged gross malpractice against the respondent, a member of the Philippine Bar, arising from a transaction where respondent's wife subleased a property to the complainant. The primary contention of the complainant was that the respondent took advantage of her trust and innocence by grossly violating the warranty provision of a sales contract pertaining to a restaurant that respondent's wife subsequently sold to the complainant. It was alleged that the respondent harassed the complainant by levying her properties in an effort to enforce a supposedly worthless claim of sixty-thousand pesos due to alleged violations of a lease agreement, of which the respondent supposedly had prior knowledge.

In the lower court, the respondent claimed that his only involvement was limited to preparing the contract

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Complainant Adelina C. Adrias alleged that respondent Attorney Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., a member of the Philippine Bar, committed gross malpractice.
• The accusation centered on respondent allegedly taking advantage of complainant’s innocence and trusting nature, particularly in connection with a sales contract that contained a warranty provision.
• It was further alleged that respondent not only violated the warranty aspect of the sales contract but also engaged in harassment—attaching and levying complainant's properties—to enforce a claim amounting to no less than thirty-six thousand pesos arising from a disputed lease agreement.
• Complainant contended that respondent acted in bad faith, knowing that the lease agreement’s claim was entirely worthless owing to the execution of a subsequent sales contract in favor of the complainant.

Respondent’s Contentions and Participation

• Respondent claimed his role was limited to drafting the contract of sublease in which his wife, Mrs. Esperanza de Guzman, acted as a party to the transaction.
• He asserted that he was not a party to the contract for the sale of the restaurant business and that his only involvement in that document was to affix his signature as a marital consent.
• Accordingly, respondent maintained that any alleged violation of contractual warranty was inapplicable against him since he was not substantively a party to the sales contract in dispute.

The Legal and Procedural Background

• The dispute involved a writ of execution issued upon a judgment by default from the City Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 229743.
• The writ authorized the levy and auction of complainant’s properties to enforce payment obligations, including the remaining balance on the sale of goodwill and equipment, as well as rental obligations accruing over specific periods.
• Complainant had exhausted several legal remedies—including motions to lift the default, motions for reconsideration, a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance, and an appeal to the Court of Appeals—all of which were unsuccessful.
• The matter was subsequently referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Evidentiary Submissions and Findings

• Both parties presented testimonies and documentary evidence to support their respective claims.
• The findings of fact largely sustained respondent’s contention that there was no gross malpractice on his part.
• Examination of the disputed sales contract revealed that respondent was not a party to it but merely provided his signature to indicate marital consent; hence, any question of breach of warranty became moot.
• In addition, evidence confirmed that the levy on complainant’s properties was executed in strict accordance with a valid writ of execution, following a final judgment and all available legal remedies.

Issue:

Whether respondent, as a member of the Philippine Bar, committed gross malpractice by alleged violation of the warranty in the sales contract.

• Did respondent’s limited participation—merely affixing his signature as marital consent—make him a party to the contract thus exposing him to liability for warranty breaches?
• Whether complainant sufficiently substantiated the claim that respondent breached any contractual warranty.

Whether the levy and subsequent auction of complainant’s properties constituted fraud or harassment.

• Was the execution of the levy, which was based on a writ issued under a judgment by default, legally and validly enforced?
• Did complainant’s multiple unsuccessful attempts at legal remedy support her claim of fraudulent or harassing conduct on the part of respondent?

Whether there was a clear preponderance of evidence to justify the imposition of sanctions such as disbarment or suspension against respondent.

• In light of the evidence, was the serious charge of gross malpractice adequately proven?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)