Title
Lacida vs. Subejano
Case
A.C. No. 13361
Decision Date
Feb 12, 2025
Atty. Rejoice S. Subejano was accused of disbarment for misrepresenting a loan transaction with Megamitch Financial Resources Corp., but the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13361)

Loan Application and Misrepresentation Allegations

On January 19, 2015, Atty. Subejano and Alejandro Rentillosa applied for a loan of PHP 15,000,000.00 from Megamitch to support their business in Iligan City and Lanao del Norte. At the time, SD Law was providing legal services to Megamitch. The complaint alleges that Subejano leveraged his personal connection with Megamitch's CEO, Alain De Schouwer, to misrepresent their engagement in a sand and gravel business to secure the loan. Consequently, Megamitch authorized disbursements totaling PHP 11,679,900.00 to Subejano, under the understanding that a formal loan contract and necessary collateral would be provided, which did not occur.

Discovery of Misrepresentation

Upon submission of an unacceptable loan contract with chattel mortgage, Megamitch discovered through the Office of the Treasurer of Iligan City that Subejano had no legitimate business records, contrary to his claims. Consequently, Megamitch refused to disburse the remaining loan amount and demanded a refund of the funds already issued. The situation escalated with Megamitch filing an Estafa criminal case against Subejano and Rentillosa, alongside the current disbarment complaint.

Respondent's Defense

Atty. Subejano acknowledged obtaining the loan but denied any wrongdoing. He claimed that he had entered the loan in his individual capacity and asserted that Megamitch's interests were safeguarded, as they submitted a business proposal and feasibility study for evaluation, received inspections of purchased equipment, and made several payments before business setbacks hindered full compliance with the loan agreement.

Investigating Commission's Findings

The Investigating Commissioner found Subejano guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This provision prohibits lawyers from borrowing from clients unless the client's interests are adequately protected. The Commissioner's recommendations included a five-year suspension from practicing law due to this violation.

IBP Board of Governors' Resolution

The IBP-BOG adopted the Commissioner's findings but reduced the penalty to a six-month suspension. Subejano’s arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration highlighted that he was not acting as Megamitch's legal counsel in the loan matter, and asserted that protections were in place to ensure that Megamitch was not disadvantaged.

Compromise Agreement and Subsequent Proceedings

A Compromise Agreement was reached between Subejano and Megamitch, wherein he agreed to settle the outstanding loan obligation. The complainant did not oppose Subejano’s motions but requested revocation of the complaint should he fail to comply with the terms of the agreement. Ultimately, the IBP-BOG recommended dismissing the disbarment complaint in 2021, recognizing Subejano's payments and ongoing efforts to resolve the financial obligations.

Court's Ruling on Dismissal

The Court endorsed the IBP-BOG's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, noting the existence of a lawyer-client relationship but insufficient grounds for administrative liability connected to the b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.