Title
Supreme Court
Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. vs. Pilla
Case
Administrative Case No. 3637
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2001
Atty. Pilla suspended for 3 years after using a forged Special Power of Attorney to secure a loan, violating professional ethics and demonstrating gross misconduct.

Case Summary (Administrative Case No. 3637)

Factual Allegations

The complainant, Rural Bank of Silay, Inc., filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla, alleging that he engaged in deceit and gross misconduct. The complaint centers around a Real Estate Mortgage executed by the respondent on July 23, 1975, wherein he acted as Attorney-in-Fact for the registered owners without their authorization, benefiting from a loan of P91,427.00 based on the purportedly forged documents. It was discovered later that Oscar D. Granada, one of the registered owners, denied executing the Special Power of Attorney that allowed Pilla to mortgage the property, leading to a civil complaint that resulted in a judicial finding of forgery.

Respondent's Defense

In response to the allegations, Atty. Pilla refuted the claims of deceit and misconduct, asserting that he had no knowledge of the forgery. He contended that the complainant bank could have verified the authenticity of the Special Power of Attorney before granting the loan, and thus, he did not misrepresent his capacity as a lawyer. He relied on arguments from the Civil Case No. 1-C decision, claiming he was not directly responsible for the falsification of signatures, despite benefiting from the allegedly false documents.

Investigation and Findings

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaints, and the evidence presented solidified the facts that Pilla misrepresented himself in granting a mortgage for the property without proper authorization from the owners. The trial court's ruling that declared the Special Power of Attorney and subsequent Real Estate Mortgage void due to forgery provided substantial grounds for disbarment proceedings against Pilla, marking a severe breach of his duty as an attorney.

Legal Conclusions and Recommendations

The IBP concluded that Atty. Pilla violated his oath as a lawyer to “do no falsehood” and engaged in deceitful conduct, which constituted gross misconduct. The recommendation from the IBP's Commissioner, Julio C. Elamparo, was initially for a five-year suspension. However, the IBP modified this recommendation to a three-year suspension, citing his lack of remorse and failure to rectify his actions, as Pilla did not return the loan amount and did not appeal the adverse judgment against him.

Final Court Decision

The

...continue reading

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