A.C. No. 4697, 4728 - Saladaga vs. Astorga

Membership in the legal profession is a privilege that comes with specific conditions, including adherence to the law and maintaining moral fitness.
Lawyers are considered guardians of the law and are obligated to uphold the highest ethical standards.
Failure to meet these standards can result in suspension or revocation of a lawyer's privilege to practice.

Complainant Florencio A. Saladaga and respondent Atty. Arturo B. Astorga entered into a "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" on December 2, 1981, involving a parcel of coconut land for P15,000.00.
Respondent represented that he had the right to sell the property and that it was free from liens and encumbrances.
The deed allowed respondent two years to repurchase the property, but he failed to do so, and no renewal was made after a final demand from complainant in May 1984.
Complainant was later informed by the Rural Bank of Albuera (RBAI) that the property had been mortgaged by respondent and subsequently foreclosed.

Complainant discovered that the title to the property had been cancelled and that respondent had engaged in a series of transactions that led to his dispossession.
A criminal complaint for estafa was filed against respondent, which was found to have sufficient grounds for prosecution.
Complainant also filed administrative complaints against respondent, seeking disbarment.

Respondent denied that the agreement was a pacto de retro sale, claiming it was an equitable mortgage and that complainant owed him an accounting of the land's produce.
The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent acted in bad faith and committed fraud by misrepresenting the status of the property in the deed.

The IBP recommended a one-year suspension and the return of the P15,000.00 to complainant.
The IBP Board of Governors modified this recommendation to a two-year suspension and also ordered the return of the amount with interest.

The Court agreed with the two-year suspension but did not order the return of the P15,000.00, stating that such civil liability should be determined in a separate civil case.
The Court emphasized that the primary concern in disciplinary proceedings is the fitness of the lawyer to continue practicing.

The Court highlighted that respondent's actions constituted a breach of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent's conduct was characterized as unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, violating both legal standards and ethical obligations.

Respondent's failure to comply with the Court's directives and the IBP's Investigating Commissioner's orders caused undue delays in the administrative procee...continue reading