Mangubat vs. Herrera

Facts:

The complaint was filed by Abner Mangubat (complainant), an heir of Aurelia Rellora Mangubat, against Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera (respondent) for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of Court arising from respondent’s representation in a revival-of-judgment action concerning land covered by TCT No. 6337. Aurelia predeceased her husband Gaudencio Mangubat; other heirs included Elizabeth Bragais, Ruth Pacia, Josue Mangubat, Ester Agna, Job Mangubat, and Raquel Azada.

In May 1998 Gaudencio engaged Atty. Herrera to file a complaint for revival of judgment (Civil Case No. P-2145) against Orlando Seva, Belen Morga-Seva and the Development Bank of the Philippines. The complaint listed the “Heirs of Aurelia represented by Raquel Azada,” but no Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was attached and Raquel later denied such representation; Abner was also listed as a co‑plaintiff. Atty. Herrera admitted his engagement was verbal and that Gaudencio would secure SPAs from his children but none were presented to the trial court.

A Compromise Agreement was executed on February 22, 2001 in which Belen agreed to pay P72,600 plus P5,000 attorney’s fees; the court approved the compromise and a writ of execution issued on October 5, 2001. The executing sheriff made multiple failed attempts in 2002. Gaudencio died on January 31, 2002. Abner engaged Atty. Haide Gumba, who on September 10, 2002 filed a motion to substitute Gaudencio with Abner; the trial court granted substitution. On October 30, 2002, Atty. Herrera filed an ex‑parte manifestation and motion to hold the award in custody and to appoint the listed heirs as substitute plaintiffs; the trial court granted the motion despite objections that Herrera had no authority from all heirs and had omitted Job Mangubat from his pleading.

On December 18, 2003 Atty. Herrera filed a “Compliance” stating he received P91,280 from a representative of Belen; on the same date a deed of conditional sale prepared by Herrera was executed between Silvestre Seva, Jr. (claiming to be attorney‑in‑fact of Belen) and the Spouses Ricardo and Rosemarie Biag for part of the land, and Herrera notarized the deed. Herrera, however, deposited the proceeds with the clerk of court only on April 7, 2005—about one year and four months after he acknowledged receipt. Prior to the deposit, Herrera filed (December 17, 2004) an ex‑parte motion to have the clerk of court draft a deed of sale in favor of the defendants; that motion was granted January 17, 2005, precipitating an action by the Spouses Biag to compel Abner to surrender the owner’s duplicate TCT.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment for multiple violations (Canons and Rules cited in his Report), citing aggravating circumstances (pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, vulnerability of victims, respondent’s long experience). The IBP Board of...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for indicating that the heirs of Aurelia were represented by Raquel in the complaint when that representation was untrue.
• Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for failing to timely inform the court of Gaudencio’s death.
• Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for filing pleadings in court without authority and despite objections of the heirs.
• Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for failing to promptly account for funds he received under the Compromise Agreement.
• Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)