Case Digest (A.C. No. 10533)
Facts:
Silvestra Medina and Santos Medina Loraya v. Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo, A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Complainants Silvestra Medina (Silvestra) and her nephew Santos Medina Loraya (Santos) filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline alleging that respondent Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo refused to return the owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 13866 and 3900, which Silvestra had entrusted to him for safekeeping. The return was demanded after other heirs sought the originals; complainants went to Atty. Lizardo’s residence on March 5, 2011 and he allegedly refused to turn over the documents.
In his answer, Atty. Lizardo admitted he had been counsel for Silvestra and her late sister Alicia, and presented documents he had prepared and notarized (Silvestra’s Malayang Salaysay, Alicia’s Sinumpaang Salaysay) to show a sale of shares to Renato Martinez (Martinez). He asserted that he withheld the TCTs because complainants did not secure Martinez’s written consent. The record shows a prior compromise judgment (CFI decision, May 16, 1962) awarding one‑fourth shares in the subject lots to Silvestra and Alicia and a partition action (Civil Case No. 18400, filed September 4, 1987). An Extrajudicial Settlement With Sale dated July 16, 1992 among Alicia’s heirs purportedly conveyed their shares to Martinez for P150,000; complainants later contended they had not agreed to sell one of the parcels (Lot 456, TCT No. 3900) and questioned the circumstances of the settlement.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner conducted mandatory conferences (July 21, 2011 and November 4, 2011) and filed a Report (Aug. 3, 2012) finding that Atty. Lizardo had represented conflicting interests and possibly participated in deceiving his clients; the Commissioner recommended a two‑year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution dated March 21, 2013, adopted the Report and suspended Atty. Lizardo for two years and directed the return of the TCTs. Atty. Lizardo moved for reconsideration; complainants filed comments. The IBP later denied reconsideration but modified its directive to return the TCTs.
The IBP Board’s resolution was transmitted to the Sup...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (and by extension the IBP Board) have jurisdiction to investigate and recommend discipline in this matter?
- Did Atty. Lizardo represent conflicting interests and unlawfully withhold his clients’ property such that he violated Rule 15.03, Canon 16 (Rule 16.03) and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Was Atty. Lizardo guilty of deceit in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)