A.C. No. 7121 [Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1244 - Emiliani Wilfredo R. Cruz and Carlos R. Cruz vs. Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz and Atty. Gracelda N. Andres

Complainants: Emiliani Wilfredo R. Cruz and Carlos R. Cruz, who are among the compulsory heirs of the late spouses Carlos Galman Cruz, Sr. and Emiliana de la Rosa Cruz.
Respondents: Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz and Atty. Gracelda N. Andres, who are facing administrative allegations of grave misconduct and unauthorized practice of law, respectively.

The spouses Cruz acquired several properties, including seven parcels of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan, covered by TCT Nos. T-93571 to T-93577 registered since 1968.
Emiliana died intestate in 1974, and four years later, Carlos, Sr. married Atty. Evelyn.
Upon Carlos, Sr.’s death in 1988, the spouses’ properties remained undivided due to the absence of either judicial or extrajudicial partition.

In 2000, complainants discovered that the Meycauayan properties became subject to an expropriation case (Republic of the Philippines v. Sps. Engracio & Ana Angeles, et al.) filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
Despite being aware of the proceedings, Atty. Evelyn did not notify the complainants and actively participated in the case, misrepresenting herself and promoting her and her children’s status as the sole heirs.
Atty. Gracelda, a relative of Atty. Evelyn, acted as counsel for the late spouses by filing pleadings (Answer, Compliance, Manifestation) without proper authority.

Atty. Evelyn, represented by Atty. Gracelda, filed a petition for the issuance of an owner’s duplicate title for the Meycauayan properties based on the allegation that the lands had been ceded to her per an agreement among the heirs.
A supporting affidavit of loss was presented by Atty. Evelyn claiming that the titles were in her possession but had been lost during a transfer of residence.
Complainants refuted these claims, asserting that the titles were actually with Carlos Cruz, Jr. and that no valid partition of the estate had occurred.

Complainants filed criminal complaints for perjury and initiated an administrative complaint against Atty. Evelyn for making false statements in her affidavit of loss.
A separate complaint was filed before the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) alleging that Atty. Evelyn had falsified her SALNs regarding a property in Las Piñas City.
The PAGC found Atty. Evelyn guilty of falsification, imposing dismissal from service which was later downgraded to suspension.

Process through Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)

The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint, citing the dispute as “a bitter family dispute about inheritance” and noting that Atty. Evelyn was in lawful possession of her purported share.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation, but complainants sought reconsideration, which was denied in subsequent resolutions.
Complainants then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The Court referred the petition to the OBC, which subsequently found:

Atty. Evelyn administratively liable for gross misconduct for misrepresenting the status of the Meycauayan properties.
Atty. Gracelda liable for unauthorized practice of law.

Atty. Evelyn is accused of willfully misrepresenting that the properties were part of her inheritance despite the absence of a final settlement or partition.
Her affidavit of loss and subsequent withdrawal of the petition for duplicate title are seen as attempts to deceive the court.
Atty. Gracelda is charged with unauthorized practice of law by appearing and filing pleadings on behalf of Atty. Evelyn without valid written authority from the House of Representatives.

Whether Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz committed grave misconduct by misrepresenting facts regarding the inheritance and the status of the Meycauayan properties.

Did her actions in filing a petition for duplicate title based on a false affidavit and misleading statements constitute a deliberate attempt to deceive the court?
Is her reliance on a mere proposal (the June 1, 1991 letter) sufficient to claim ownership of the disputed properties?

Whether Atty. Gracelda N. Andres engaged in unauthorized practice of law by appearing and filing pleadings without securing the necessary written authority from the House of Representatives.

Were the clerical errors in designating her as counsel for the spouses Cruz genuine inadvertences or a cover for unauthorized representation?
Does her participation in the expropriation case and the petition for duplicate titles breach civil service and ethical standards for government-employed lawyers?

The broader issue of whether the misconduct of the respondents warrants the imposition of severe disciplinary sanctions such as suspension or reprimand, or whether disbarment should be considered.