G.R. No. L-45255 - Heirs of Avila vs. Court of Appeals

Complainant: Abner R. Mangubat, one of the heirs of the late Aurelia Rellora Mangubat.
Respondent: Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera, engaged to represent Gaudencio Mangubat (Aurelia’s husband) in a legal case.
Family context: Aurelia’s heirs include Elizabeth, Ruth, Josue, Ester, Job, and Raquel, in addition to Abner.

In May 1998, Gaudencio engaged Atty. Herrera to institute a complaint for the revival of judgment over a parcel of land (TCT No. 6337) against Orlando Seva, Belen Morga-Seva, and the Development Bank of the Philippines.
The complaint identified Gaudencio and the “Heirs of Aurelia represented by Raquel Azada” with Abner also listed as a co-plaintiff.
Atty. Herrera admitted that his engagement was based on a verbal agreement at Gaudencio’s instance and that Gaudencio was to secure a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from his children, which was never presented.

A Compromise Agreement was executed on February 22, 2001, whereby Belen agreed to pay a set amount along with attorney’s fees in exchange for the transfer of title (TCT No. 6337).
Atty. Herrera filed a motion for execution after the Compromise Agreement’s approval, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution on October 5, 2001.
Repeated attempts by the sheriff in early 2002 to execute the judgment were unsuccessful as Belen was not available.

Gaudencio Mangubat died on January 31, 2002.
Abner later met with Atty. Herrera to discuss nullifying the long overdue Compromise Agreement and to inform him of Gaudencio’s death.
Atty. Herrera later filed pleadings and motions without obtaining proper authority from all heirs, including an ex-parte motion to consolidate representation by substituting Gaudencio with Abner, although some heirs (e.g., Job) were omitted.

Atty. Herrera received funds pursuant to the Compromise Agreement and later filed a “Compliance” indicating receipt of money in December 2003.
Despite receiving the funds, there was a significant delay in depositing the money with the clerk of court (not deposited until April 7, 2005).
Concurrently, Atty. Herrera drafted and notarized a deed of conditional sale in favor of Silvestre Seva, Jr. and the Spouses Biag, despite conflicting interests with the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and found Atty. Herrera guilty of multiple violations including:

Misrepresenting the representation of the heirs (indicating that Raquel represented them without a proper SPA).
Failing to timely inform the court about Gaudencio’s death.
Filing pleadings without proper authority and in face of objections from some heirs.
Delaying the remittance of funds collected from the Compromise Agreement to the clerk of court.
Engaging in conflict of interest by representing parties with competing claims.

The IBP recommended penalties including disbarment for each of these infractions under various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Ethics (CPE).

The IBP Board of Governors initially suspended Atty. Herrera from the practice of law for three (3) years.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, and the Board’s resolution was reaffirmed.
After an en banc review, the penalty was modified from suspension to the more serious penalty of disbarment based on the gravity and repeated nature of the infractions.

Whether Atty. Herrera should be held administratively liable for misrepresenting that the heirs of Aurelia were represented by Raquel when this was not true.
Whether his failure to inform the court in a timely manner about Gaudencio Mangubat’s death constitutes a violation of the Rules of Court.
Whether filing pleadings in court without obtaining proper authority from all the heirs (and despite their objections) is sufficient ground for discipline.
Whether Atty. Herrera’s failure to promptly remit the funds received under the Compromise Agreement to the clerk of court or directly to the heirs amounts to a violation of his fiduciary duties.
Whether his act of drafting and notarizing a deed of conditional sale in favor of parties with conflicting interests amounts to a breach of the duty to avoid conflict of interest.