G.R. No. 229380 - Reyes y Capistrano vs. People

A letter dated August 20, 1996, from the District Court of Guam informed the Philippine Court that Atty. Leon G. Maquera had been suspended from the practice of law in Guam for two years, following a decision by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996.
The suspension resulted from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera in Special Proceedings Case No. SP0075-94, alleging misconduct and unethical behavior.

The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera, while acting as counsel for a client (Castro), engaged in misconduct by acquiring his client’s property as payment for legal services.
Key transactions included an oral agreement made on December 21, 1987, wherein Castro assigned his right of redemption to Maquera; Maquera’s exercise of that right on January 8, 1988; and the subsequent sale of the property on December 31, 1988, which yielded a profit significantly exceeding the reasonable legal fees.
The court emphasized that Maquera’s fee (US$45,000.00) was disproportionately low compared to the profit (exceeding US$200,000.00) he realized from the sale of the property, confirming the allegations of deception, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

Upon receiving the information and certified copies of the records from Guam, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Bar Confidant and subsequently to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its investigation and recommendation.
The IBP issued a Notice of Hearing on July 28, 1998, though it was returned unserved because Maquera had moved from his last known address, leaving no forwarding address.
On October 9, 2003, the IBP submitted its Report and Recommendation, which led to the indefinite suspension of Maquera from the practice of law in the Philippines until he updates and fully pays his long-outstanding IBP membership dues from 1977.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a suspension or disbarment rendered in a foreign jurisdiction, where the lawyer is also admitted as an attorney, is prima facie evidence and a ground for similar disciplinary action in the Philippines if the conduct involves deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or other violations of ethical standards.
The Memorandum by then Bar Confidant Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa and subsequent directives stressed the need to secure a complete record from Guam to determine if the acts in question similarly contravene Philippine ethical standards or the lawyer’s oath.
Due process requirements under Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court further mandate that a lawyer be given proper notice and an opportunity to respond before any disciplinary measure is imposed in the Philippines.

Whether the disciplinary sanction imposed in Guam can serve as prima facie evidence to sustain a similar suspension or disbarment in the Philippines under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether Maquera’s conduct—acquiring a client’s property through an assignment of the right of redemption, exercising that right, and selling the property for an exorbitant profit—constitutes unethical behavior and a violation of the lawyer’s oath and the standards of professional conduct.
Whether the procedures followed, including the failure to serve Maquera with the Notice of Hearing, affect due process rights and impact the imposition of the domestic sanction.
Whether the failure to pay the IBP membership dues since 1977 is an independent and sufficient ground for indefinite suspension from the practice of law in the Philippines.