A.C. No. 9899, 9900, 9903-9905, 9901, 9902

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9899, 9900, 9903-9905, 9901, 9902)

Facts relevant to A.C. No. 9899 (Canillo petition)

Respondent acted as counsel for plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-96-29389 and filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. After the comment to the petition had been filed, the Supreme Court required a reply within ten days. Respondent failed to file the required reply, resulting in the denial of the petition. Reconsideration was filed and denied; judgment became final and executory upon entry on April 29, 2003. When confronted about the dismissal, respondent declined to explain to his client at a meeting on September 23, 2004.

Facts relevant to A.C. No. 9900 (Malvar–Lopez dealings; conflict of interest)

Respondent and Dr. Malvar had a long-standing relationship (1994–2004), during which respondent handled many civil and criminal matters for Malvar and also represented the Lopez family in several cases involving adjoining or overlapping land interests. Respondent introduced Malvar to Marcelino Lopez and facilitated joint-venture and sale agreements between Malvar and the Lopezes, signing as witness in those transactions. After relations deteriorated, respondent opposed Malvar’s intervention on appeal and subsequently filed a new complaint in which respondent himself was a named plaintiff seeking cancellation of the agreements he had earlier facilitated. The record thus shows that respondent simultaneously represented or materially participated in transactions involving parties with adverse interests.

Facts relevant to A.C. Nos. 9901–9902 (Hizon matter and champertous agreement)

Respondent was engaged in 1983 by Angelina Villaroza Hizon to secure a parcel of land, with an agreement that respondent would advance costs, taxes and expenses necessary to secure Torrens title in exchange for two hectares of land. Respondent later filed a quieting of title action only in 1995, and also represented parties (the Lopezes) in matters overlapping the property claimed by the Hizons. The arrangement with Angelina—where respondent promised to advance all costs and expenses in return for an interest in the land—was challenged as champertous and contrary to the lawyer’s fiduciary duties.

Facts relevant to A.C. Nos. 9903–9905 (failure to account; transactional irregularities)

Dr. Malvar furnished respondent with multiple checks and advances in connection with purported conditional purchases: for a Tandang Sora property (P1,233,333.00 aggregate), for a Canillo property transaction and related filing/docket fees (P980,000.00 and P435,000.00 in various checks), and for a Novaliches parcel (P100,000.00 initial check and subsequent payments). Several of the contracts were unsigned by the purported sellers, contained no-refund clauses in case of adverse litigation outcomes, or were conditioned on favorable adjudications that did not occur. Malvar repeatedly demanded accounting; respondent failed to render adequate accounting, and some funds were transferred to third persons without Malvar’s informed, confirmed consent.

IBP findings and recommended sanctions

The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of: failure to serve with competence and diligence (failing to file required reply), representing conflicting interests, entering into a champertous contract, breach of trust and fraud for failure to account for client funds, fraud in executing a deed of conditional sale without proper authority, and gross dishonesty and misconduct for failing to account for advances. The commissioner recommended indefinite suspension given the pattern of violations; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendations and denied reconsideration.

Court’s findings on respondent’s misconduct

The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP’s findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported multiple charges of professional misconduct. The Court emphasized respondent’s repeated failures: neglecting to file required court papers (inexcusable negligence), representing conflicting interests without informed written consent, executing and facilitating champertous and legally dubious agreements, and failing to account for client funds as required by the Code.

Legal analysis of specific rule violations

Rule 18.03 (Neglect): Respondent’s failure to file a reply in the Supreme Court case for Canillo, despite an express directive and notice, constituted inexcusable negligence and breached the duty of diligence owed to a client.
Rule 15.03 (Conflicting interests): Respondent’s simultaneous role in transactions and litigation affecting Malvar and the Lopez/Hizon interests—signing agreements, representing opposing parties, then suing to invalidate agreements he had prepared—constituted representation of conflicting interests without written consent after full disclosure.
Rule 16.04 and champerty doctrine: The agreement to advance all costs and expenses for Angelina in exchange for two hectares amounted to a champertous arrangement impermissible under public policy and reflective of an improper fiduciary relationship where the lawyer’s financial st

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9899, 9900, 9903-9905, 9901, 9902)

Parties, Cases, and Consolidation

Complainants and docket numbers:
- Dandiberth Canillo v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles — A.C. No. 9899 (relating to G.R. No. 153138 / Canillo petition).
- Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles — A.C. No. 9900 (and A.C. Nos. 9903–9905 for related complaints).
- Leonora L. Hizon v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles — A.C. No. 9901.
- Sheryl H. Custodio, Venus H. Tumbaga, Maryjane M. Hizon, Gladys Hizon, and Adonis Hizon v. Atty. Sergio F. Angeles — A.C. No. 9902.
Subject of consolidation:
- Multiple disbarment/administrative complaints against respondent Atty. Sergio F. Angeles were consolidated upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Forum and disposition:
- The matter was resolved en banc by the Supreme Court, reported at 839 Phil. 494 and 115 O.G. No. 21, with the Decision dated May 27, 2019 (A.C. No. 9899, September 04, 2018).

Core Allegations and Causes of Action

Broad categories of complaints against respondent:
- Gross negligence for failure to comply with Supreme Court directive to file a reply (Canillo petition) leading to dismissal.
- Representing conflicting interests in civil cases involving a common parcel of land (Malvar-Lopez-Hizon matters).
- Entry into a champertous contract (agreement with Angelina Villaroza Hizon).
- Fraudulent and deceitful acts, gross misconduct, malpractice, and failure to account for sums of money allegedly given to respondent (multiple transactions involving Dr. Malvar).
- Breach of trust, fraud, and gross dishonesty, including failure to account and return advanced amounts.
Specific administrative charges found and summarized by the IBP Investigating Commissioner:
- Failure to serve client with competence and diligence (failure to file reply for Canillo).
- Representing conflicting interests (filing suit against Dr. Malvar while having acted for him and facilitating dealings).
- Entering into a champertous contract with Angelina.
- Failure to account for client funds relating to the Tandang Sora property.
- Fraud in entering into a deed of conditional sale without proper authority.
- Gross dishonesty and misconduct for failure to account and return amounts advanced as docket fees.

Procedural History (Supreme Court / Trial-Level Actions)

Canillo petition:
- Civil Case No. Q-96-29389 at RTC; CA ordered dismissal; respondent filed petition for review before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 153138.
- Supreme Court required petitioners to submit a reply within ten days after the comment was filed; respondent failed to file the reply.
- Denial of the Canillo petition followed; motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent and denied; judgment entered April 29, 2003, making the Decision final and executory.
Post-dismissal interactions:
- Canillo demanded explanation; at a September 23, 2004 meeting attended by Canillo, Dr. Malvar (financier), and others, respondent angrily parried the question and left without explanation.
Malvar-related civil actions:
- Dr. Malvar filed a motion to intervene on appeal in Civil Case No. 96-4193; respondent filed comment opposing intervention.
- Respondent later filed Civil Case No. Q-04-53966 (with respondent as a plaintiff alongside Lopezes) against Potenciano Malvar and/or Noel Rubber and Development Corporation seeking cancellation of agreements and deeds of sale.
Financial/accounting civil actions:
- Dr. Malvar filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent and Marcelino, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-04-54479, after respondent failed to account for sums.
- Respondent filed Civil Case No. Q-04-54356 against Dr. Malvar for collection of attorney’s fees.

Factual Background — Canillo / Q-96-29389 and Supreme Court Petition

Canillo’s role:
- Canillo was one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-96-29389; respondent was counsel for the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court proceeding:
- The Court of Appeals, on certiorari, ordered dismissal; respondent filed the Canillo petition (G.R. No. 153138) in the Supreme Court.
- After comment to the petition was filed, the Supreme Court required petitioners to submit a reply within ten days; respondent failed to do so, resulting in denial of the Canillo petition.
- Motion for reconsideration denied; decision final upon entry of judgment April 29, 2003.
Post-decision meeting:
- On September 23, 2004, in a meeting including Canillo and Dr. Malvar, respondent refused to explain the dismissal and left angrily.

Factual Background — Relationship between Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar and Respondent

Personal and professional relationship:
- Respondent and Dr. Malvar became acquainted in 1994 and became close friends; respondent handled around 24 civil and criminal cases for Dr. Malvar from 1994 to 2004.
- Respondent introduced Dr. Malvar to Marcelino Lopez, another client and business associate.
Role in dealings:
- Respondent facilitated dealings between Dr. Malvar and the Lopezes, signed as witness on joint venture agreement and several deeds of conditional sale.
- Respondent handled cases involving overlapping properties owned/claimed by Lopezes and the Hizons.

Factual Background — Lopez, Hizon, and Joint Ventures / Sales

Lopez and overlapping litigation:
- Lopez-related cases involving property adjacent to Malvar property included:
  - Civil Case No. 463-A: Marcelino Lopez, et al. v. Ambrosio Aguilar, et al.
  - Civil Case No. 96-4193: Jose Esquivel, Jr. and Carlito Talens v. Marcelino Lopez, et al.
  - Civil Case No. 95-3693: Angelina Villarosa (Villaroza) Hizon, et al. v. Carlito Talens, et al.
- Respondent represented the Lopezes and the Hizons in these cases.
Joint venture and acquisitions:
- Confident of favorable rulings, Dr. Malvar entered into a joint venture agreement with Marcelino (as attorney-in-fact of co-owners), granting Dr. Malvar exclusive right to negotiate financing, development, and construction on part of litigated property.
- Dr. Malvar acquired portions by conditional and absolute sales; respondent facilitated execution of joint venture agreements and deeds of conditional sale.
Adverse rulings and fallout:
- RTC of Antipolo City ruled against the Lopezes in Civil Case No. 96-4193.
- Dr. Malvar sought to intervene on appeal; respondent discouraged it; Dr. Malvar instead filed motion for intervention through another counsel; respondent opposed via comment.
- Their relationship deteriorated after the September 23, 2004 meeting; respondent filed suit as co-plaintiff with Lopezes (Civil Case No. Q-04-53966) against Malvar to cancel the agreements and deeds he had prepared.

Factual Background — Hizon / Angelina and Champertous Contract Allegation

Retainer for Angelina Villaroza Hizon:
- In 1983 Angelina engaged respondent to secure a parcel of land in Antipolo.
- Contract for professional services provided respondent would pay and advance all costs and expenses, including taxes, necessary to secure Torrens certificate of title; in exchange Angelina agreed to transfer ownership of two hectares to respondent.
Delayed litigation:
- Respondent filed suit for quieting of title only in 1995 (Civil Case No. 95-3693) with respondent as co-plaintiff along with Angelina and heirs of Lauro Hizon.
Overlapping claims:
- Respondent represented the Lopezes in separate civil cases involving property overlapping with the Hizons’ claimed parcel.
- Respondent h