Facts:

In the case of Antonio T. Aguinaldo vs. Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr., a Complaint for Disbarment was filed by Antonio T. Aguinaldo (the complainant) against Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr. (the respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). This was on October 7, 2020. The dispute arose from an alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The events transpired in Banauang, Moncada, Tarlac, in October 2010, when Aguinaldo agreed to purchase a 4.4-hectare property from the respondent. Aguinaldo paid an earnest money of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00) as part of the transaction. Subsequently, Asuncion requested an additional Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00) without providing necessary documentation for the property, which led Aguinaldo to ask for the return of the earnest money after multiple demands went unanswered. Aguinaldo accused Asuncion of fraudulent behavior f

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This is a disciplinary proceeding where Antonio T. Aguinaldo, acting as complainant, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr.
• The complaint was initiated before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for alleged violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Transaction and Negotiations

• In October 2010, during discussions involving the complainant, the respondent, the respondent’s mother, and their agent Mia Gan, a transaction for the sale of a 4.4-hectare property located in Banauang, Moncada, Tarlac was negotiated.
• The respondent agreed to sell the property to the complainant, and as a sign of commitment, the complainant handed him an earnest money payment of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).

Development of the Dispute

• The respondent later requested an additional Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00), which the complainant refused because the respondent had not provided the necessary documentation showing the property’s status.
• Due to persistent failure on the part of the respondent to furnish the property details and ultimately return the earnest money, the complainant alleged that the respondent committed fraud and exploited his legal knowledge to take advantage of the complainant’s limited understanding.
• The respondent, however, maintained that:
• The earnest money was intended as a guaranty that the complainant would not back out of the transaction and that the respondent’s mother would not entertain other buyers until November 20, 2012 – the date by which the down payment was due.
• The complainant had failed to comply with his obligation to pay the down payment on time, and by imposing unagreed conditions (e.g., the segregation of the 4.4 hectares and the issuance of a separate title), he effectively backed out of the transaction.
• Citing the case of Spouses Doromal v. Court of Appeals, he asserted that under traditional principles, earnest money given as a guaranty is forfeited if the buyer withdraws from the sale.

Procedural History and IBP-CBD Proceedings

• A mandatory conference was conducted on June 13, 2012, where both parties were ordered to submit their verified position papers and comments.
• Subsequently, on August 28, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, indicating an initial settlement agreement.
• However, the complainant later filed a Position Paper on December 4, 2012, disavowing a full settlement due to the respondent’s alleged non-compliance with its terms.
• In its Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 2014, the IBP-CBD found that Atty. Asuncion engaged in deceitful conduct by failing to disclose material facts regarding the status of the property and by refusing to return the earnest money.
• The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted the IBP-CBD recommendation in a Resolution on February 25, 2016.
• Atty. Asuncion’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP-BOG through a Notice of Resolution on April 20, 2017, and the records were thereafter transmitted to the Court on February 7, 2018.

Allegations and Legal Basis

• The complainant accused Atty. Asuncion of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR by engaging in fraudulent and deceitful conduct.
• Specifically, the respondent was charged with failing to disclose that the property was already sold to the Posadas family, misleading the complainant, and wrongfully refusing to return the earnest money.
• The action was backed by a finding of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct by a lawyer.

Issue:

Primary Issue

• Whether Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr. should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Sub-Issues

• Whether the respondent engaged in fraudulent and deceitful conduct by misrepresenting material facts concerning the property.
• Whether his persistent refusal to return the earnest money, despite the transaction not materializing, constitutes misconduct.
• Whether the respondent’s claim that the earnest money was forfeited due to the complainant’s failure to pay the down payment is legally tenable in light of the absence of explicit agreement to that effect.
• Whether the respondent’s actions amount to a breach of the ethical and professional obligations expected of lawyers.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)