A.C. No. 10511 - Melad-Ong vs. Sabban

On November 22, 1984, Jose Melad sued Concepcion Tuyuan for reconveyance, reivindication, and annulment of title over a 272,045-sqm property (TCT No. T-52533). Jose claimed to be sole heir of Fe Tuyuan. Jose was represented by Atty. Simeon Agustin; Concepcion by Atty. Hilarion Aquino.
On May 31, 1985, respondent Atty. Placido M. Sabban, with his father Atty. Benito Sabban, filed a complaint in intervention for the Maguigads, who also claimed to be heirs of Fe Tuyuan.

In May 1995, Concepcion executed a Deed of Confirmation granting 10 ha of the disputed land to Atty. Benito as attorney’s fees, without court or party knowledge.
On November 3, 1995, DAR granted retention: 7 ha to Concepcion, 5 ha to Atty. Benito, and 2.0507 ha to respondent, despite a lis pendens on the title.

Following Jose’s death (January 26, 1995) and the demise of Atty. Agustin (December 2007), respondent drafted a compromise agreement in February 2008 partitioning the land: 80,000 sqm to heirs of Jose, 80,000 sqm to the Maguigads, 112,045 sqm to Concepcion. RTC approved it on April 1, 2008.
On April 1, 2008, Concepcion executed two Deeds of Absolute Sale totaling 70,000 sqm in favor of respondent and his family, based on the 7 ha retained in 1995. Certificates of title were issued accordingly.

In July 2011, the heirs of Jose applied for retention of their 80,000-sqm share; DAR in February 2011 granted up to 5 ha and cancelled tenants’ patents, ruling PD 27 coverage ceased upon judicial approval of the compromise.
In March 2013, the Maguigads filed a motion for execution of the compromise decree and rescinded respondent’s services. RTC issued writ of execution (August 27, 2014) and survey revealed Camella Homes’ development encroaching on portions claimed by Maguigads (44,619 sqm) and heirs (14,417 sqm).

On July 17, 2014, complainant Milagros Melad-Ong filed a disbarment complaint before the Office of the Bar Confidant, alleging respondent committed unlawful acts, interest in subject property, conflict of interest, and falsifications.
The Supreme Court referred the case to the IBP (Resolution February 23, 2015). After pleadings, a clarificatory hearing (April 8, 2016) limited the issue to whether respondent caused loss of property to the heirs of Jose.
IBP-CBD (Report December 12, 2016) recommended one-year suspension for violations of CPR Canons 1, 3, 10 and Civil Code Article 1491. IBP-BOG adopted it (June 17, 2017), then on reconsideration dismissed the case (October 4, 2018).

Representing conflicting interests in violation of CPR Canons 15.03, 17 and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (acting for both Maguigads and Concepcion; filing motion for reconsideration against former clients).
Acquiring interests in property under litigation in violation of Civil Code Article 1491(5) (DAR retentions and deeds of sale).
Committing falsehoods or non-disclosure in court and to parties in violation of Rule 10.01.

Whether the limitation of issues by the IBP violated respondent’s right to due process in the disciplinary proceedings.