Facts:

The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Ariel Conducto Castillo (complainant) against Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza (respondent) on November 23, 2016. The complaint arose from allegations of misrepresentation and deceit by the respondent in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The events leading to the complaint began in August 2015 when the complainant met the respondent regarding the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his deceased mother, Lagrimas Conducto Castillo. The respondent represented the complainant's sister, Annelyn Castillo-Wico, in this matter. The complainant claimed that the respondent persuaded him and his siblings to sign an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Lagrimas Conducto Castillo with Waiver of Claims Against Planters Bank SPC Branch (EJS with Waiver) on October 2, 2015, under the pretense that part of their mother's funds in the bank would be used to pay estate taxes. Trusting the responden...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Ariel Conducto Castillo filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza on November 23, 2016, alleging misrepresentation and deceit in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Allegations of Misrepresentation

• Complainant claimed that in August 2015, respondent, representing complainant's sister Annelyn Castillo-Wico, facilitated the signing of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver (EJS with Waiver) dated October 2, 2015. Complainant signed the document, believing it was for the withdrawal of funds from their deceased mother’s Planters Bank account to pay estate taxes.
• Complainant later discovered that Annelyn claimed sole ownership of the funds, which had already been withdrawn. Complainant repudiated the EJS with Waiver and instructed Planters Bank to halt the transaction.

Petition for Probate

• On January 14, 2016, respondent filed a petition to approve the last will and testament of Lagrimas Conducto Castillo (complainant’s mother). Complainant opposed this, asserting that the will had been revoked by a subsequent will dated January 13, 2014, which designated him as the estate administrator.

Alleged Misuse of Funds

• Complainant alleged that respondent, in connivance with a Planters Bank employee, withdrew half of the funds from the account and distributed portions to complainant’s siblings while pocketing some for himself. Complainant also accused respondent of sending a collection letter for a property (Paule Property) without his authorization, despite complainant being the rightful owner via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 16, 2014.

Respondent’s Defense

• Respondent denied deceiving complainant and explained that the EJS with Waiver was drafted at the bank’s suggestion to facilitate the release of funds. He also denied involvement in the withdrawal of funds, stating that Annelyn withdrew her share independently.
• Respondent maintained that he acted in good faith to protect the interests of his clients (Annelyn and Arman Castillo) and the estate. He argued that the demand letter for the Paule Property was sent to prevent the dissipation of estate assets pending probate court proceedings.

IBP Findings

• The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence to prove respondent’s involvement in deceiving complainant or misusing funds. However, the IBP held respondent liable for misrepresentation in the demand letter and interference with the probate court’s jurisdiction, recommending a five-year suspension.
• The IBP Board of Governors later reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension, deeming the original recommendation excessive.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Lack of Substantial Evidence: Complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove respondent’s involvement in deceiving him or misusing funds from the Planters Bank account.
2. Co-Ownership of Estate Assets: The Court emphasized that the heirs of Lagrimas’ estate owned the assets in common. As co-owners, Annelyn and Arman had the right to demand payment for the Paule Property, and respondent’s actions were for the benefit of the estate.
3. Good Faith and Zealous Representation: Respondent’s actions, including sending the demand letter, were deemed to be in good faith and aimed at protecting his clients’ interests. There was no evidence of deceit or misrepresentation.
4. Amicable Settlement: The Court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement, as evidenced by the probate court’s order withdrawing the petition. This further supported the dismissal of the complaint.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza, finding no administrative liability for the acts complained of. The decision underscores the importance of substantial evidence in proving allegations of professional misconduct and recognizes the role of lawyers in zealously representing their clients’ interests.