Title
Mangubat vs. Herrera
Case
A.C. No. 9457
Decision Date
Apr 5, 2022
Atty. Herrera disbarred for false representation, unauthorized pleadings, failure to account for funds, and conflict of interest in a land dispute case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216838-39)

Procedural Background and Factual Chronology

In May 1998 Gaudencio engaged Atty. Herrera to revive a judgment concerning TCT No. 6337 against the Sevas and DBP (Civil Case No. P-2145), naming Gaudencio and the “Heirs of Aurelia represented by Raquel Azada” (with Abner also listed). No special power of attorney (SPA) from the heirs was presented to the trial court. A compromise agreement was executed on February 22, 2001, wherein Belen agreed to pay P72,600.00 plus P5,000.00 attorney’s fees; the court approved the compromise, and a writ of execution issued October 5, 2001. The sheriff reported failed attempts at execution in January–June 2002. Gaudencio died on January 31, 2002. Abner later engaged counsel (Atty. Haide Gumba), sought substitution as plaintiff (motion filed September 10, 2002) and obtained substitution. Despite the death of Gaudencio and objections by some heirs, Atty. Herrera continued filing pleadings, filed an October 30, 2002 ex parte manifestation to hold the award in custody and to appoint the heirs as substitute plaintiffs, and later filed pleadings and motions affecting the title and disposition of proceeds.

Key Allegations and Specific Acts Challenged

The complaint charged multiple breaches: (1) falsely representing that Raquel represented all heirs when no SPA accompanied the complaint and several heirs denied such representation; (2) failing to notify the court within 30 days of the client’s death (Section 16, Rule 3); (3) appearing and filing pleadings without authority or after the death of his client, despite heirs’ objections (Section 27, Rule 138); (4) failing to promptly remit execution proceeds to the clerk of court or to the heirs and commingling/retaining funds (Canon 11, Rule 16.02 and Section 9, Rule 39); and (5) drafting and notarizing a deed of conditional sale and moving for ex parte clerk involvement in favor of an adverse party, thereby creating a conflict of interest (Rule 15.03).

IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommended Sanctions

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty on multiple counts: violations of Canon 5 (duty to keep abreast of legal development), Rule 10.01 (duty of fidelity to the courts), Section 27, Rule 138 (willful appearance without authority), Section 16, Rule 3 (duty to inform court of client’s death), Rule 15.03 (conflict of interest), Canon 16 and Rules 16.01–16.02 (trustee duties and non-commingling), and Canon 18/Rules 18.03–18.04 (due diligence and client communication). Citing aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, vulnerability of victims, respondent’s long experience), the Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment under applicable IBP-CBD Guidelines.

Actions and Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report with modification, issuing Resolution No. XXI-2014-792 which suspended Atty. Herrera from the practice of law for three years for violations of multiple CPR canons, Rules of Court and CPE. The Board subsequently denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration through Resolution No. XXII-2015-68, affirming the three-year suspension.

Issues Framed for Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court identified and addressed the following issues: (I) whether respondent was administratively liable for falsely indicating Raquel represented all heirs; (II) whether respondent was liable for failing to timely inform the court of Gaudencio’s death; (III) whether respondent was liable for filing pleadings without authority despite heirs’ objections; (IV) whether respondent failed to promptly account for funds collected under the compromise; and (V) whether respondent violated conflict-of-interest rules by acting in favor of an adverse party.

Supreme Court’s Overarching Ruling and Penalty Modification

After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court held that respondent committed repeated, brazen, and serious violations of the CPR, CPE and the Rules of Court. The Court modified the IBP Board’s penalty and imposed disbarment, reasoning that respondent’s cumulative acts—misrepresentation, failure to notify the court of a client’s death, unauthorized appearances, untimely accounting for funds, and conflict-of-interest conduct—demonstrated unfitness to continue practicing law and warranted the supreme sanction.

Liability for Misrepresenting Heirs’ Representation by Raquel

The Court found respondent liable for falsely representing that Raquel was authorized to represent all heirs because he failed to secure and attach any SPA or other proof of authority. He relied solely on Gaudencio’s oral promise to obtain an SPA later. This conduct misled the court and breached duties under Canon 5 (keep abreast of legal requirements) and Rule 19.03 (lawyer must not allow client to dictate procedure), as well as general obligations to avoid falsehoods and misleadings before the court.

Liability for Failing to Inform the Court of Client’s Death

Under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, counsel must inform the court of a client’s death within thirty days and provide the legal representative’s contact information; failure constitutes disciplinary ground. Gaudencio died January 31, 2002; respondent did not report the death until October 30, 2002—approximately nine months later—and thus was held administratively liable for failing to comply with that duty.

Liability for Appearing and Filing Pleadings Without Authority

Because respondent continued to represent and file pleadings on behalf of Gaudencio and the purported heirs despite the absence of authorization (no SPA for Raquel) and despite Gaudencio’s death, the Court held that he willfully appeared without authority in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and related duties of candor and fidelity to the tribunal. The Court emphasized that counsel’s duty to secure and verify authority to represent parties cannot be abdicated by reliance on unilateral instructions from one person.

Liability for Failing to Promptly Account for Collected Funds

The Court concluded respondent violated Section 9, Rule 39 (execution procedures) and the fiduciary rules in Canon 11 of the CPE and Rule 16.02 of the CPR. Respondent reported receiving P91,280.00 on December 18, 2003 but deposited P84,480.00 only on April 7, 2005—approximately one year and four months later—and did not timely remit or inform certain heirs (notably Abner and Job). The Court held that, even if authorized to receive the proceeds, the executing sheriff and counsel must ensure immediate turnover to the clerk of court and proper accounting; respondent’s long retention of funds and failure to notify heirs violated trust duties.

Liability for Conflict of Interest and Advocacy for Adverse Party

The Court found respondent breached Rule 15.03 (no representation of conflicting interests without written consent after full disclosure) when he drafted and notarized a conditional deed of sale between Silvestre (asserting authority for Belen) and Spouses Biag, and when he filed an ex parte motion seeking designation of the clerk of court to draft conveyance documents in favor of defendants. The Court observed that respondent, although purporting to act as “Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms