G.R. No. 72138 - Spouses Alvendia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Complainant: Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, represented by Beverly Domo, owner of a 111.4-hectare prime agricultural land in Barangay Lumbia, Cagayan de Oro City, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-170.
Respondent: Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa, previously suspended for three years for borrowing a substantial amount of money from his client-spouses and refusing to pay his indebtedness, now again facing allegations related to his fiduciary duties.

The Cooperative acquired the land through a Certificate of Land Ownership Award issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform in 1992, holding it as legal title for its members.
In 1995, the Cooperative was sued by Philippine Veterans Bank in Civil Case No. 95-086 for annulment of TCT No. T-170; the case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Cagayan de Oro City.
In 1997, the Cooperative engaged Respondent and his law office to represent it in Civil Case No. 95-086 under a retainer agreement that provided for a monthly fee and a contingent fee of 5% of any settlement or sale proceeds.

On February 12, 2000, the Cooperative executed a special power of attorney authorizing the Respondent to:

Negotiate for the sale of the land or delegate negotiation authority to an interested broker.
Execute necessary documents to consummate the sale.
Open a bank account in the Cooperative’s name (with Chairperson Paz Genilla as co-Asignatory) to deposit sale proceeds.
Collect and deposit the sale proceeds.

On June 12, 2007, the Cooperative revoked the special power of attorney granted to Respondent.
In response, Respondent presented a General Assembly Resolution (Resolution No. 1 dated March 19, 2008) from the new governing board (led by Lino D. Sajol) “reconfirming all previous authorities” despite the revocation by the prior board headed by Beverly Domo.

Civil Case No. 95-086 eventually ended with a decision dismissing the case on May 14, 2008 for lack of jurisdiction.
The land was later sold—reports indicate a buyer was booked as early as February 2008, with the actual sale taking place on August 7, 2009 to a buyer identified as Diana Biron.
Respondent acted as the broker in the sale but failed to disclose the buyer’s identity to the Cooperative and kept details of the transaction confidential, claiming a duty of confidentiality to the buyer.

The Cooperative filed an administrative complaint against Respondent for gross misconduct, alleging multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including breaches of his fiduciary duty regarding money matters and conflict of interest.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Misamis Oriental Chapter, referred the complaint to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) under CBD Case No. 08-2327.
Despite initial procedural steps—including mandatory conferences and the filing of position papers (with only the Cooperative complying)—the case continued paralleling a civil action (Civil Case No. 2010-299) for annulment of the disputed sale and questions over the rightful governing board of the Cooperative.

Investigating Commissioner Fernandez (Report and Recommendation dated June 1, 2010) recommended dismissal without prejudice, suggesting that the matter hinged on the determination of the rightful governing board of the Cooperative.
Contrarily, by Extended Resolution dated November 28, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors rejected the recommendation and proceeded on the merits based on the Cooperative’s internal registration records with the Cooperative Development Authority.
The IBP-Board of Governors identified several serious infractions committed by Respondent:

Lack of diligence and competence in allowing Civil Case No. 95-086 to linger.
Engaging in a conflict of interest by insisting on negotiating the sale exclusively through his intervention.
Breaching his duty of transparency by withholding the buyer’s identity.
Verbally abusing farmer-beneficiaries.
Compelling the Cooperative to sell at an extremely low price (P30.00 per square meter).

These actions were noted as prioritizing his personal pecuniary interest over those of his client and its members, prompting the recommendation for disbarment.

Whether Respondent violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (governing disbarment and suspension) and specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, namely:

Whether Respondent’s conduct constituted an act of gross misconduct by engaging in conflict of interest, failing to adhere to his fiduciary duty, and improperly handling the sale proceeds.

Respondent’s previous suspension for similar breaches in an earlier case (Spouses Concepcion v. Atty. Dela Rosa).
The magnitude and recurrence of the misconduct, impacting a broad number of farmer-beneficiaries and compromising the Cooperative’s interests.