G.R. No. L-24968 - Saura Import and Export Co., Inc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines

Multiple disbarment complaints were filed against Atty. Sergio F. Angeles by various complainants, including Dandiberth Canillo, Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar, Leonora L. Hizon, Sheryl H. Custodio, Venus H. Tumbaga, Maryjane M. Hizon, Gladys Hizon, and Adonis Hizon.
The charges leveled against respondent include gross negligence in failing to file timely responses, representation of conflicting interests, entering into a champertous contract, committing fraudulent and deceitful acts, engaging in gross misconduct and malpractice, and failing to account for client funds.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) consolidated these complaints after its Office of the Bar Confidant recommended action against respondent.

Dandiberth Canillo, a plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-96-29389, charged respondent with gross negligence for failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive to file a reply in the petition for review (G.R. No. 153138).
The failure to file the reply resulted in the dismissal of the Canillo petition.
After the dismissal, Canillo sought an explanation from respondent during a meeting on September 23, 2004, where respondent abruptly left without clarifying the matter.

Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar, who had a long-standing professional and personal relationship with respondent from 1994 to 2004, accused respondent of representing conflicting interests.
Respondent handled approximately 24 civil and criminal cases for Dr. Malvar and was involved in various dealings concerning a common parcel of land co-owned by Marcelino Lopez and his siblings.
Respondent introduced Dr. Malvar to Marcelino Lopez, which led to a joint venture agreement authorizing Dr. Malvar to negotiate the financing, development, and construction on disputed property.
Respondent facilitated the execution of joint venture agreements and deeds of conditional sale.
A subsequent altercation arose when respondent discouraged Dr. Malvar from intervening on appeal after an unfavorable RTC ruling on one of the land cases, causing a souring of their relationship.

Complainants Leonora L. Hizon, Sheryl H. Custodio, Venus H. Tumbaga, Maryjane M. Hizon, Gladys Hizon, and Adonis Hizon alleged that respondent represented conflicting interests and entered into a champertous contract.
In 1983, Angelina Villaroza Hizon engaged respondent’s services to secure a parcel of land, where respondent was to advance all costs necessary for obtaining the Torrens certificate of title in exchange for a transfer of two hectares of land.
A discrepancy arose as respondent filed a case for quieting of title later, in 1995, and simultaneously represented the Lopezes in separate property cases that overlapped with the claim of the Hizons.
Respondent had advised Angelina and her children that their claim depended on the Lopezes’ claim, thereby highlighting a potential conflict of interest.

Dr. Malvar further charged respondent with fraudulent and deceitful acts, gross misconduct, and malpractice in connection with transactions involving a 5,000-square meter property in Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
Respondent, together with Marcelino Lopez, facilitated Dr. Malvar’s conditional purchase of the property by securing agreements for conditional and absolute sales.
Dr. Malvar issued several checks (amounting to P500,000.00; P250,000.00; P333,333.00; and P150,000.00) related to the property but later demanded an accounting for these funds.
Respondent failed to provide the requisite accounting or receipts for the sums received, and alleged that some money had been transferred to a third party, Col. Manuel Manalo, without proper notification or confirmation from Dr. Malvar.
In separate litigation concerning a one-hectare property in Novaliches, respondent represented that his claim of co-ownership was based on his contingent attorney’s fees, further raising issues of transparency and accountability.

The IBP’s Investigating Commissioner, after consolidating the evidence from the various complaints, found respondent guilty of multiple professional violations, including:

Failing to serve his client (Canillo) with competence and diligence (gross negligence).
Representing conflicting interests, particularly in the handling of cases for Dr. Malvar and in transactions involving the Lopezes.
Entering into a champertous contract with Angelina, thereby violating public policy and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Breach of trust and fraud in failing to account for funds given by Dr. Malvar.

Although the commissioner absolved respondent on the charge concerning the conflicting representation of the Hizons and the Lopezes, the overall findings established a propensity for repeated violations of ethical norms and professional responsibilities.
The IBP recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended, a recommendation that was adopted unanimously by its Board of Governors, and respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Whether respondent’s failure to file the requisite reply in the Canillo petition constituted gross negligence that harmed his client’s interests.
Whether respondent’s simultaneous representation of conflicting interests, particularly between Dr. Malvar and parties with an opposing claim, breached the ethical duty under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the execution of a champertous contract with Angelina, which involved advancing expenses in exchange for land, violated public policy and Rule 16.04.
Whether respondent’s handling of funds, including his failure to issue receipts and account for money received from Dr. Malvar, amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under Rules 16.01 and 18.03.
Whether the cumulative evidence of respondent’s ethical and professional failures justified the imposition of the penalty of disbarment.