Case Digest (A.C. No. 8854)
Facts:
Julieta Dimayuga v. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Julieta Dimayuga engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Vivian G. Rubia in June 2002 to effect the transfer of their deceased father’s property; the services were to include preparation, notarization, processing of transfer documents, and payment of taxes and fees. Respondent prepared an Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights signed on June 17, 2002, but the family later discovered that the donor’s tax and transfer tax were paid only in 2007 and that the Amended Settlement was entered with the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur on November 28, 2007 and re-entered December 1, 2008. Complainant alleged she and her family gave respondent P150,000 on June 17, 2002 to cover fees and taxes, and theorized respondent misappropriated the funds because of the belated payments.Complainant also retained respondent in June 2003 to effect the purchase of a 600-square meter parcel in Digos City; respondent prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 27, 2003. The parcel was covered by a TCT issued from a CLOA and bore the annotation prohibiting sale, transfer or conveyance except under limited conditions for a ten-year period under Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP), so a sale on June 27, 2003 would have been prohibited. Complainant alleged respondent should have known and prevented the prohibited sale.
The Court required respondent to file a comment by Resolution dated January 31, 2011. Respondent repeatedly failed to file a comment despite extensions and multiple resolutions — the Court imposed fines (P2,000 then P4,000) for noncompliance, which respondent eventually attempted to pay but initially with expired postal money orders and later with replacements. Respondent explained delays by citing trauma, stress, prior cases, and office transfer, but she still did not file the substantive comment. The Court issued show-cause orders and, noting continued noncompliance, deemed the failures willful and dilatory.
Proceeding to the merits, the Court found that complainant did not prove by substantial evidence the alleged misappropriation or unjustified delay in payment of fees and taxes; however, the Court found sufficient basis to conclude respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale covering land still under the CLOA prohibition, and thereby violated duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Nota...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to file a comment constitute willful disobedience and ground for disciplinary action?
- Did complainant prove by substantial evidence that respondent misappropriated funds or unjustifiably delayed payment of taxes and fees?
- Did respondent commit professional misconduct by preparing and notarizing a deed of sale covering land still protected by the CLOA prohibition, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice?
- If misconduct is es...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)