Case Summary (A.C. No. 4426, 4429)
Background of the Dispute
The property in question was part of the intestate estate of Ramon E. Saura, who died on May 15, 1992. Despite ongoing negotiations for three years for the settlement of this property, the complainants later discovered that the administrators, with Atty. Agdeppa's assistance, sold the property to Sandalwood Real Estate and Development Corporation without informing or involving the petitioners. Compounding the situation, the administrators and Atty. Agdeppa refused to disclose the sale price or account for the proceeds, prompting the complainants to initiate both criminal and civil actions to assert their rights as co-heirs.
Legal Proceedings and Compliance Issues
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by the Supreme Court due to previous resolution notices being unserved. Atty. Agdeppa failed to appear at subsequent hearings, despite being provided with her new address and being informed of her obligation to file an answer. The petitioners' counsel managed to establish that Atty. Agdeppa received notice of the proceedings as of March 2, 1998, but she remained noncompliant.
Respondent's Defense and Arguments
Atty. Agdeppa filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming a violation of her due process rights and that she could not respond fully due to attorney-client privilege concerns. However, the court asserted that the respondent's continuous disregard for the hearing notices constituted a waiver of her right to answer. The court stated that due process was upheld as she was afforded reasonable opportunities to present her case.
Court's Evaluation of Attorney-Client Privilege
The court emphasized that the information sought by the complainants regarding the property sale was not shielded by attorney-client privilege. The petitioners, as co-owners of the property, were entitled to information regarding its sale and proceeds, which had to be disclosed by Atty. Agdeppa. The court reiterated the ethical obligations of attorneys in similar situations, emphasizing that they could not invoke privilege to prevent rightful inquiries by clients or stakeholders.
Sanctions Imposed on Respondent
For Atty. Agdeppa's failure to comply with the Court's previous resolutions and her lack of engagement in her defense, the court decided to impose a fine of P2,000, which she was required
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 4426, 4429)
Overview of the Case
- Two petitions were filed against Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa, one by Ramon Saura, Jr., and the other by Helen S. Baldoria and Raymundo Y. Saura.
- The complaints allege violations of the lawyer's oath and certain sections of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
- The complaints stem from Atty. Agdeppa's handling of a settlement case involving a property owned in common by the petitioners and their siblings.
Background of the Property Dispute
- The property in question is part of the intestate estate of the late Ramon E. Saura, who died on May 15, 1992.
- The petitioners were co-heirs and co-administrators of the estate, alongside siblings Macrina, Romeo, and Amelita Saura.
- Negotiations for the settlement of the property lasted three years, leading to allegations that the administrators sold the property to Sandalwood Real Estate and Development Corporation without the petitioners' knowledge.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Atty. Agdeppa allegedly notarized the Deed of Sale for the property without informing the petitioners.
- Despite repeated demands from the petitioners, Atty. Agdeppa