A.C. No. 6950 - Allan vs. Salgado

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6950)

Factual Background

The record showed that on several occasions from August 18, 2004 to November 11, 2004, respondent, claiming to be the owner of the Millenium Park Place, a four-storey two condominium unit located at Road 20, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Project 8 corner Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City (the subject property), persuaded complainant to purchase scrap materials from him.

Respondent, together with Fernando “Andy” Cruz and a certain Rodzen (collectively, the Salgado group), induced complainant to believe that they were looking for a financier for the demolition of the subject property. To secure her participation, they represented that P15,000,000.00 worth of steel scrap could be recovered through the demolition.

Complainant agreed to finance the demolition. On August 20, 2004, she executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respondent. Under the MOA, respondent assigned to complainant all materials that would be recovered from the demolition for a contract price of P7,000,000.00. Respondent also undertook to deliver true copies of the demolition permit and other government permits and licenses on or before August 30, 2004, after the release of an initial payment. The MOA was signed in respondent’s office at Room 226, Dona Consolacion Bldg., Araneta Center, Quezon City.

On the same date, complainant released an initial P1,000,000.00 to respondent, for which respondent issued a receipt. Complainant further gave P350,000.00 to Cruz and Rodzen for the purchase of materials to be used in the demolition.

Despite receipt of the initial payment and the lapse of the agreed period, respondent did not deliver the necessary government permits and licenses. Instead, Cruz and Rodzen continued to approach complainant, requesting additional funds for alleged follow-ups with the Office of the Building Officials of Quezon City.

In September 2004, respondent began requesting further money for an alleged “under the table” arrangement with employees of the Quezon City Engineering Department to expedite the release of the demolition permits. Respondent assured complainant that the additional amounts would be treated as advances deductible from the contract price. Complainant gave respondent P200,000.00 on September 24, 2004, P300,000.00 on September 27, 2004, and P100,000.00 on October 16, 2004. Respondent later introduced Nick Sanchez (Sanchez) who promised to help with the release of the demolition permits.

Complainant later learned from individuals in the Quezon City Engineering Department about a modus operandi attributed to persons identified with Atty. Salgado, which had already victimized others. She then investigated the identity of the true owner of the subject property and discovered that respondent was not the owner. The property was co-owned by Daniel Casabar and Rufina Reyes. When the Salgado group again demanded P300,000.00, complainant reported the matter to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Karingal.

On November 11, 2004, an entrapment operation led to the apprehension of Sanchez and respondent. During the operation, respondent received another P300,000.00 from complainant. An Information dated November 12, 2004 was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City charging respondent with Estafa.

Proceedings Before the Court

The Court issued a Resolution dated December 14, 2005, requiring respondent to file his comment on the Complaint. Respondent later claimed in a Manifestation dated August 17, 2006 that he was not furnished a copy of the Complaint. On November 29, 2006, the Court ordered complainant to furnish respondent with a copy.

Complainant complied by personally serving the Complaint on respondent at his office at Dona Consolacion Bldg., General Santos Avenue, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City. Respondent then filed a motion for extension requesting ten more days from February 11, 2007 until February 21, 2007 to file his comment. The Court granted the motion in a Resolution dated April 18, 2007. Despite the extension, respondent did not file his comment.

Accordingly, the Court issued a Resolution dated November 24, 2010, directing respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplined. On August 8, 2011, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 or a penalty of five days imprisonment if the fine was not paid within the prescribed period. The Court also required compliance with the Resolution dated December 14, 2005.

On March 13, 2013, the Court increased the fine to P4,000.00 due to continued noncompliance. On February 14, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution directing the National Bureau of Investigation to cause the arrest of respondent and for him to be detained for five days until he complied with the Resolution dated December 14, 2005, and to return the order of arrest and detention to the Court.

The Court’s Evaluation of the Issues

The principal issue was whether respondent was guilty of violating the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath, particularly in relation to his conduct in inducing complainant to release money and his subsequent failure to obey the Court’s directives.

The Court cited that the CPR provisions relevant to the determination included Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Rule 1.02 (prohibiting counsel or abetment of activities aimed at defiance of law or lessening confidence in the legal system), Canon 1 (the lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes), Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law and requiring dignified conduct in public or private life), and Canon 7 (the duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).

The Court also underscored that a lawyer must possess good moral character and that violations of the oath and deceitful conduct warrant removal from the profession. The Court further stated that a lawyer has a duty to obey lawful orders of a superior court and that willful disobedience is a ground for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138.

The Parties’ Positions and the Court’s Findings

The Court’s ruling treated the record as decisive. It held that respondent violated sworn duties under the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. It found that respondent, aided by Cruz, Rodzen, and Sanchez, convinced complainant to part with P1,600,000.00 by pretending to be the owner of the subject property and representing that he had assigned it to complainant through the MOA executed in his law office. It further noted that respondent issued receipts for each payment to avoid arousing suspicion.

The Court held that respondent’s wrongdoing was exposed when complainant learned he was not the true owner of the subject property and discovered the property was co-owned by Daniel Casabar and Rufina Reyes. It also noted that respondent’s apprehension followed an entrapment operation on November 11, 2004, during which he received another P300,000.00 from complainant.

As to the administrative aspect, the Court treated respondent’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s Resolutions dated December 14, 2005, November 24, 2010, August 8, 2011, and March 13, 2013 as manifest disregard of the system he had sworn to support upon taking his oath. The Court regarded such noncompliance as willful disobedience of lawful orders.

Disposition of the Administrative Complaint

The Court determined that the gravity of respondent’s offenses warranted disbarment. It emphasized that willful disobedience to lawful Court orders is a sufficient ground for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138. The Court also relied on the fact that respondent had already been disbarred in the Decision dated February 18, 2020 of the Court En Banc in A.C. No. 12452, Michael M. Lapitan v. Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado, whose dispositive portion ordered that respondent be disbarred and his name stricken off the roll of attorneys effective immediately.

The Court acknowledged that it did not impose double disbarment. However, it cited Nicolas v. Laki and Punla v. Villa-Ona to support the imposition of a fine in lieu of disbarment. Considering that respondent was unworthy of the legal profession and was a fugitive from justice, and also taking into account the depreciation of the Philippine peso, the Court imposed a fine of P100,000.00. The Court also imposed P4,000.00 for respondent’s failure to comply with the various directives of the Court.

The Court declared respondent GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 1.02, Canon 1, Rule 7.03, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It ordered respondent to pay the P100,000.00 fine in lieu of disbarment and to pay P4,000.00 for failure to comply with the Court’s directives. It directed that a copy of the Decision be furnished to and properly recorded in the Office of the Bar Confidant for attachment to respondent’s personal record.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning relied on the moral and professional obligations imposed on lawyers by the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. It treated respondent’s deception—posing as the owner, inducing complainant’s financial support through promises of scrap materials, and representing that permits would be delivered after initial payment—as dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed by Rule 1.01, and as behavior undermining respect for lawful processes, contrary to Rule 1.02 and Canon 1.

The Court also treated respondent’s act of soliciting additional money through a supposed “under the table” arrangement as conduct adverse to the integrity and dignity of the legal profession under Rule 7.03 and Canon 7.

Separately, the Court grounded its disciplinary power on Section 27, Rule 138, emphasizing that a lawyer must obey lawful orders of a superior court. It treated respondent’s continued refusal to file his comment and his noncompliance with multiple Court resolutions as a willful disobedience of lawful orders, warranting disbarment.

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6950)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rebecca M. Allan filed a Complaint dated March 7, 2005 seeking disciplinary action against Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado.
The Complaint alleged violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by the respondent.
The Court required the respondent to file a comment in a Resolution dated December 14, 2005.
The respondent later claimed he was not furnished a copy of the Complaint in a Manifestation dated August 17, 2006, prompting the Court to direct the complainant to furnish him with a copy.
The complainant personally served the Complaint on the respondent’s office in Cubao, Quezon City.
The respondent sought extensions to file his comment, and the Court granted at least one extension by Resolution dated April 18, 2007.
Despite granted extensions, the respondent failed to file a comment, leading the Court to order him to show cause in Resolution dated November 24, 2010.
The Court imposed escalating penalties for continued noncompliance, first fining him in Resolution dated August 8, 2011, then increasing the fine in Resolution dated March 13, 2013.
In Resolution dated February 14, 2018, the Court directed the National Bureau of Investigation to cause the arrest of the respondent for detention until compliance with the earlier directive to submit the comment.
The Court ultimately found the respondent guilty of violating the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath and imposed a fine in lieu of disbarment.

Key Factual Allegations

The respondent represented himself as the owner of the Millenium Park Place, a four-storey two-condominium unit at Road 20, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Project 8 corner Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City.
The respondent convinced the complainant on several occasions from August 18, 2004 to November 11, 2004 to purchase scrap materials from him in relation to a supposed demolition of the subject property.
The respondent, together with Fernando "Andy" Cruz and a certain Rodzen, induced the complainant to believe the group was seeking a financier for the demolition.
The inducement included the representation that P15,000,000.00 worth of steel scrap could be recovered from the demolition of the subject property.
The complainant agreed to finance the demolition and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on August 20, 2004.
Under the MOA, the respondent assigned to the complainant all materials recovered from the demolition for a contract price of P7,000,000.00.
The MOA required the respondent to deliver true copies of the demolition permit and other government permits and licenses on or before August 30, 2004 after the release of the initial payment.
The MOA was signed in the respondent’s office, and on the same date the complainant released an initial P1,000,000.00 to which the respondent issued a receipt.
The complainant also gave P350,000.00 to Cruz and Rodzen for the purchase of materials to be used in the demolition.
After the agreed period, the respondent did not deliver the promised government permits and licenses.
Cruz and Rodzen continued to ask complainant for extra money allegedly to follow up documents with the Office of the Building Officials of Quezon City.
In September 2004, the respondent began requesting additional money to cover an “under the table” arrangement with employees of the Quezon City Engineering Department to expedite release of the demolition permits.
The respondent assured the complainant that the additional amounts would be treated as advances deductible from the contract price.
The complainant gave the respondent P200,000.00 on September 24, 2004, P300,000.00 on September 27, 2004, and P100,000.00 on October 16, 2004.
The respondent introduced Nick Sanchez to assist with the release of the demolition permits.
The complainant later discovered that the subject property was not owned by the respondent but was co-owned by Daniel Casabar and Rufina Reyes.
When the Salgado group requested another P300,000.00, the complainant reported the matter to the PNP at Camp Karingal.
An entrapment operation occurred on November 11, 2004, leading to the apprehension of Sanchez and the respondent.
During the entrapment, the respondent received an additional P300,000.00 from the complainant.
The events were linked to a criminal case for Estafa filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City by an Information dated November 12, 2004, docketed as Criminal Case No. O-OY-131087 and styled People of the Philippines v. Elpidio Salgado y Sarmen, Nixon Sanchez y Reyes, and Juanito Adlawan y Sarmen.
The Court characterized the respondent’s conduct as deceitful and unlawful based on the complainant’s payments totaling P1,600,000.00 prior to the entrapment.

CPR and Lawyer’s Oath Standards

The Court held that the respondent violated his sworn duties under the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
The Court cited CPR Canon 1, which requires a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey laws,