A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837 - Lopez vs. Lucmayon

The complainant, Conrado Abe Lopez, inherited one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 1718 (355 sq. meters) in Balamban, Cebu, from his adoptive father, Restituto Lopez, as evidenced by a document titled "Katapusan Panugon" (Testamente).
However, the complainant ended up receiving a portion of Lot No. 1696 (49,817 sq. meters) instead, which became the subject of an extrajudicial settlement in December 1978 involving the complainant, his adoptive mother Honorata Lopez, and the relatives of the respondent, Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon.
After Honorata Lopez's death in 1982, the complainant took over the cultivation of the land upon retiring as a seafarer in 1988.

In October 2004, the complainant and the respondent met in Buanoy, Balamban, Cebu. The respondent allegedly deceived the complainant into signing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to facilitate the sale of Lot No. 1696 to the Aboitiz Group of Company.
Unbeknownst to the complainant, the SPA contained a "Waiver of Rights" at the bottom, which the respondent had inserted to strip the complainant of his ownership of the land.
The SPA was notarized by Atty. Arturo C. Mata without the complainant's presence. The respondent allegedly informed the complainant that he no longer had any rights over the property.
In March 2005, the respondent's father, Pedro Lucmayon, ordered the complainant to cease cultivating the land due to the Waiver of Rights.

The complainant alleged that the respondent caused his family to execute a "Supplemental Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Moises Legaspino and Victoria Lopez," excluding the complainant and his adoptive mother as legal heirs of Restituto Lopez.
The complainant claimed this was an act of dishonesty, as they were rightful heirs to the property inherited from Restituto Lopez.

The respondent denied deceiving the complainant, stating that it was the complainant who sought to sell his shares due to exhaustion from cultivating the land.
He argued that the complainant was not legally adopted and, therefore, not entitled to any portion of the land.
The respondent also claimed that the administrative complaint was filed to harass and embarrass him.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that the allegations in the administrative complaint mirrored those in a dismissed criminal complaint for falsification of public documents.
The OCA initially recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit but later recommended holding the respondent liable for impropriety after reconsideration.

Whether the respondent violated Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as the complainant's attorney-in-fact.
Whether the respondent committed impropriety by making the complainant sign documents (SPA and Waiver of Rights) without legal counsel and allowing their notarization outside the complainant's presence.