A.C. No. 6950 - Allan vs. Salgado

Parties and nature of the case
Rebecca M. Allan filed a Complaint dated March 7, 2005 for disciplinary action against Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado (respondent).
The Complaint alleged violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Pre-disposition factual antecedents involving the “Salgado group”
From August 18, 2004 to November 11, 2004, respondent represented himself as the owner of Millenium Park Place, a four-storey two condominium unit located at Road 20, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Project 8 corner Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City (subject property).
Respondent, together with Fernando “Andy” Cruz (Cruz) and a certain Rodzen (collectively, Salgado group), convinced complainant to purchase scrap materials from him.
The Salgado group made complainant believe that they were seeking a financier for the demolition of the subject property.
To entice complainant, they informed her that P15,000,000.00 worth of steel scrap might be recovered from the demolition of the subject property.
Complainant agreed to finance the demolition of the subject property.

Memorandum of Agreement and initial payments
On August 20, 2004, complainant and respondent executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Under the MOA, respondent assigned to complainant all materials recovered from the demolition of the subject property in exchange for a contract price of P7,000,000.00.
The MOA also required respondent to deliver true copies of demolition permit and other government permits and licenses on or before August 30, 2004 after the release of the initial P1,000,000.00.
The MOA was signed in respondent’s office located at Room 226, Dona Consolacion Bldg., Araneta Center, Quezon City.
On the same date, complainant released the initial P1,000,000.00, to which respondent issued a receipt.
Complainant additionally gave P350,000.00 to Cruz and Rodzen for the purchase of materials to be used in the demolition.

Non-delivery of permits and requests for additional money
Despite receiving the initial payment and after the agreed period elapsed, respondent did not deliver the required government permits and licenses.
After this, Cruz and Rodzen frequented complainant’s house to ask for extra money, which they alleged would be used to follow up documents with the Office of the Building Officials of Quezon City.
Sometime in September 2004, respondent started asking complainant for additional money to help him with an “under the table” deal with employees of the Quezon City Engineering Department to expedite the release of demolition permits.
Respondent assured complainant that the additional amounts would be treated as advances deductible from the contract price.
Complainant gave respondent the following additional amounts:

Respondent introduced to complainant a certain Nick Sanchez (Sanchez), who promised to assist with the release of demolition permits.

Discovery of lack of ownership and police reporting
Complainant learned from individuals in the Quezon City Engineering Department about a modus operandi committed by persons identified with a certain Atty. Salgado who had victimized other people.
Complainant then made inquiries on the identity of the true owner of the subject property.
She discovered that the subject property was not owned by respondent, but co-owned by Daniel Casabar and Rufina Reyes.
When the Salgado group again asked complainant for another P300,000.00, complainant reported the matter to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Karingal.

Entrapment and criminal proceedings
On November 11, 2004, the PNP organized an entrapment operation that led to the apprehension of Sanchez and respondent.
During the entrapment operation, respondent received another P300,000.00 from complainant.
An Information dated November 12, 2004 was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City charging respondent with estafa.
The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. O-OY-131087, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Elpidio Salgado y Sarmen, Nixon Sanchez y Reyes, and Juanito Adlawan y Sarmen.”

Proceedings in the disciplinary case before the Court
On December 14, 2005, the Court required respondent to file his comment on the Complaint.
In a Manifestation dated August 17, 2006, respondent averred that he was not furnished a copy of the Complaint.
On November 29, 2006, the Court ordered complainant to furnish respondent with a copy of the Complaint. ...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR through acts of deceitful and dishonest conduct that induced complainant to part with money under false pretenses.
Whether respondent willfully disobeyed lawful orders and directives issued by the Court in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, warranting disciplinary sanction.
Whether, despite prior disbarment...(Subscriber-Only)