Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 25)
Facts:
Ambrosia Sumangil, Rosa Sumangil and Marcelina Mendoza Delizo, Complainants, v. Atty. Mariano Sta. Romana, Respondent, Administrative Case No. 25, October 25, 1949, Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from the estate proceedings following the death of Juana Ringor Vda. de Sumangil. After her death Cirilo Sumangil presented a document purporting to be her last will (Exhibit A, Aug. 24, 1936) to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for probate. Atty. Mariano Sta. Romana represented Ambrosia and Rosa Sumangil and others in opposing probate (Exhibit B, Mar. 17, 1937). The trial court denied probate; the Court of Appeals affirmed on April 30, 1940. The testate proceeding in CFI No. 7416 was thereafter converted into intestate proceedings (civil case No. 7416).
Multiple administrators and pleadings followed. The first administrator was Jose Sumangil. On Feb. 7, 1938 respondent (then representing opponents to probate) petitioned that Jose be changed as administrator (Exhibit 1); Ramon Locsin was appointed in his stead. On Mar. 29, 1938 respondent, representing Locsin, sought turnover of estate property (Exhibit 4). On Nov. 25, 1940 respondent filed a petition, claiming to represent all heirs, to replace Locsin with Paulino Mendoza; Mendoza was appointed (Exhibit 5). On Mar. 10, 1943 Ambrosia, Rosa and Marcelina, through Atty. Severo O. Pascual, objected to Mendoza’s reports and accounts (Exhibit 8).
On Aug. 26, 1943 eight heirs signed an agreement (Exhibit H) identifying heirs, shares and settlement terms; paragraph 6 bound Cirilo and the heirs of Domingo to pay the other heirs P400 per estirpe through Atty. Mariano Sta. Romana within 60 days; respondent signed as attorney for all heirs. On Apr. 18, 1947 Atty. Vicente Llanes (representing all heirs except Cirilo and Sofia Divina) petitioned for partition, accounting of rents and production, and enforcement of the P400-per-estirpe obligation (Exhibit T). On July 21, 1947 Llanes (for Ambrosia, Rosa and Marcelina) asked the court to disapprove administrators’ accounts, compel delivery of documents and jewelry, and enforce paragraph 6; this pleading was later amended (Exhibit M, Sept. 24, 1947).
When those petitions were heard respondent appeared for Cirilo, Sofia Divina, the heirs of Domingo and for administrators Jose and Paulino, despite objection that he had formerly represented the complainants and could not properly switch sides. On Sept. 17, 1947 respondent, representing the administrators, filed a motion to quash the accounting proceedings (pleading 8, Exhibit L‑1), arguing that the obligations complained of were pre-liberation and barred by the moratorium orders.
Because respondent had acted for parties whose interests conflicted with his former clients (and in some instances in the same case), Ambrosia, Rosa and Marcelina filed a complaint with the Supreme Court for malpractice and gross unprofessional con...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Mariano Sta. Romana’s conduct in representing parties adverse to his former clients in intestate proceedings No. 7416 constitute malpractice and gross unprofessional conduct?
- If so, what disciplinary measure...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)