Facts:

The case involves Lino C. Bernal, Jr. (complainant) against Atty. Ernesto M. Prias (respondent) concerning a disbarment complaint filed on October 7, 2020. The events leading to the complaint began in December 2014 when respondent visited the City Treasurer's Office in Antipolo City to redeem a property owned by Solid Builders, Inc. Respondent claimed to be the authorized representative of the delinquent taxpayer. The property in question is located in Sitio Labahan, Barangay Mambugan, Antipolo City, and is described under Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-123108. On December 22, 2014, respondent paid the unpaid real property taxes amounting to P167,982.80, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 4449001. However, he was informed that the payment would only benefit the declared owner and was required to submit proof of his authority to redeem the property by January 12, 2015. Respondent failed to provide any such proof by the deadline. Consequently, on January 30, 2015, Be...

Facts:

Parties and Initial Contact

• Complainant: Lino C. Bernal, Jr., Officer-in-Charge of the City Treasurer’s Office of Antipolo City.
• Respondent: Atty. Ernesto M. Prias, a lawyer accused of misconduct in connection with a property redemption transaction.
• The dispute arises from a disbarment complaint alleging unethical conduct by the respondent.

The Redemption Transaction

• Sometime in December 2014, respondent visited the City Treasurer’s Office claiming to be the authorized representative of Solid Builders, Inc. to redeem a property registered under TCT No. N-123108.
• The subject property, located in Sitio Labahan, Barangay Mambugan, Antipolo City, spans approximately 766 square meters and is also identified by Tax Declaration No. AC-011-05640 with PIN No. 177-01-011-026-188.
• Respondent paid the unpaid real property taxes plus interest, amounting to ₱167,982.80, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 4449001, on December 22, 2014.

Allegations and Representations Made

• Respondent claimed he was acting on behalf of the delinquent taxpayer or the registered owner despite being introduced to the City Treasurer’s Office for the first time.
• Complainant advised that for the redemption payment to be applied, respondent needed to furnish proper proof of his authority or an equivalent legal instrument.
• A deadline of January 12, 2015, was set for the submission of such documents, but respondent failed to meet this requirement.

Subsequent Developments and Correspondence

• On January 30, 2015, complainant sent a formal letter informing respondent that his redemption payment was cancelled due to the absence of sufficient proof of legal representation.
• The letter detailed the earlier agreement where respondent had promised to submit documents like a Memorandum of Agreement, Contract to Sell, or a Deed of Sale as evidence of his authority.
• Complainant also invited respondent to claim a refund by presenting the original receipt.

Clarification from the Registered Owners

• A meeting with the registered owners of the property revealed that a designated representative (Florentina Genove, empowered by a Special Power of Attorney and Board Resolution) was authorized to act on behalf of Solid Builders, Inc.
• The registered owners had instead opted to redeem the property themselves, indicating that respondent was not authorized to do so.

Respondent’s Defense and Admissions

• Respondent contended that he leased the lot for use in his gravel and sand business after being introduced by a purported owner, Mr. Carriaga.
• He maintained that he was unaware of another claim of ownership and that his intent in redeeming the property was to protect his business interests by avoiding additional interest charges.
• Respondent admitted to losing in an auction held by the City Treasurer for the delinquent property but argued that his subsequent actions—as the actual possessor—did not manifest any deceit or wrongdoing.

The Disbarment Proceedings

• A verified disbarment complaint/letter-affidavit was filed by the complainant with the Supreme Court, citing violations of the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
• The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The IBP’s report (dated July 10, 2017) recommended dismissal of the complaint due to insufficient proof.
• In response, the Supreme Court reversed the IBP finding and proceeded with disciplinary sanctions against the respondent.

Issue:

The Validity of Respondent’s Representation

• Whether respondent misrepresented himself as the authorized representative of Solid Builders, Inc. in the redemption of the property.
• Whether his actions, including his failure to furnish the required documentation of authority, constitute dishonesty and deceit.

Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR

• Whether respondent’s conduct violated the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 1.02 (prohibiting counsel or abetment of law-defying activities) of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Determining if respondent’s actions compromised the ethical and moral standards expected of a lawyer.

Evidentiary Considerations in Disbarment Proceedings

• Whether the evidence presented by the complainant meets the threshold of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence required to impose disciplinary sanctions in disbarment proceedings.
• Evaluation of the burden of proof on the complainant in establishing respondent’s culpability.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)