Title
Palalan Carp Farmers Multi-Purpose Coop vs. Dela Rosa
Case
A.C. No. 12008
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
A lawyer was disbarred for gross misconduct, including conflict of interest, failure to disclose sale details, undue delay, exploitation, and verbal abuse, breaching fiduciary duties and ethical standards.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12008)

Antecedents of the Case

In 1995, the cooperative faced a legal dilemma when it was sued by Philippine Veterans Bank for the annulment of its title to the property, which led to the engagement of Respondent Dela Rosa in 1997. Under a retainer agreement, Dela Rosa was compensated monthly along with a contingent fee based on the outcome of the case. In 2000, the cooperative granted Dela Rosa a special power of attorney, enabling him to negotiate the sale of the land and manage related transactions.

Revocation of Authority and Subsequent Actions

The cooperative revoked Dela Rosa's special power of attorney in June 2007; however, he claimed renewal of his authority through General Assembly Resolution No. 1, purportedly reaffirming his previous powers. Disputes arose within the cooperative regarding its governance, complicating the legal landscape amidst ongoing litigation over the property.

Sale of Property and Allegations of Misconduct

On August 7, 2009, the cooperative's land was sold, facilitated by Dela Rosa, who failed to disclose key aspects of the transaction, including the identity of the buyer. This led the cooperative to accuse him of conflict of interest, prompting formal administrative complaints against him.

Resolution and Findings of Misconduct

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initiated proceedings, resulting in findings of Dela Rosa's gross misconduct including negligence, conflict of interest, failure to protect his client’s interests, verbal abuse of clients, and exploitation in selling the land at significantly undervalued prices. These actions were deemed to breach multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Recommendation of Disciplinary Action

Despite a recommendation for dismissal without prejudice of the administrative complaint by the Investigating Commissioner due to ongoing litigation, the IBP Board of Governors conducted a thorough review and found substantial evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, they recommended disbarment for Dela Rosa, citing his preference for personal financial gain over his ethical obligations to the cooperative.

Court’s Ruling on Violations

The Court ruled that Dela Rosa’s actions violated the CPR and his obligations under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, establishing that he engaged in deceitful and malicious conduct detrimental to his client's interests. The rulings highlighted the importance of loyalty and integrity expected from legal practitioners, emphasizing that conflict of interest must be avoided without proper disclosure and consent.

Disbarment as the Appropriate Penalty

Given Dela Rosa's repeated violations and the severity of hi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.