Title
Bernal, Jr. vs. Prias
Case
A.C. No. 11217
Decision Date
Oct 7, 2020
Atty. Prias misrepresented himself as an authorized representative to redeem a property, violating ethical standards, leading to a two-year suspension.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11217)

Facts:

  1. Initial Encounter and Representation:

    • In December 2014, Atty. Ernesto M. Prias (respondent) went to the City Treasurer's Office of Antipolo City to redeem a property registered under Solid Builders, Inc. He claimed to be the authorized representative of the delinquent taxpayer or person holding a lien over the property.
    • Lino C. Bernal, Jr. (complainant), the Officer-in-Charge of the City Treasurer's Office, met respondent for the first time during this encounter.
  2. Property Details:

    • The property in question is located in Sitio Labahan, Barangay Mambugan, Antipolo City, with an area of 766 square meters, covered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-123108 and Tax Declaration No. AC-011-05640.
  3. Payment and Conditions:

    • On December 22, 2014, respondent paid P167,982.80 for unpaid real property taxes and interest.
    • He was informed that the payment would only benefit the declared owner and was advised to submit proof of authority or ownership by January 12, 2015.
    • Respondent failed to submit the required documents by the deadline.
  4. Cancellation of Payment:

    • On January 30, 2015, complainant sent a letter to respondent canceling the payment due to the lack of proof of authority.
  5. Meeting with Registered Owners:

    • Complainant later met with the registered owners of the property, who informed him that respondent had offered to buy the property but was denied. They also stated that Florentina Genove was their authorized representative for redemption.
  6. Respondent’s Defense:

    • Respondent claimed he leased the property from a certain Mr. Carriaga, who introduced himself as the owner. He used the property for his gravel and sand business.
    • He argued that as the actual possessor, he had a legal interest in the property and sought to redeem it to avoid paying interest.
    • Respondent denied misrepresenting himself as the authorized representative of the registered owner.
  7. Disbarment Complaint:

    • Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR by misrepresenting himself as the authorized representative of the registered owner to redeem the property.
  2. Whether respondent’s actions constitute dishonesty and deceitful conduct warranting disciplinary action.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.