Case Summary (A.C. No. 4863)
Allegations of Misconduct
The complainant asserts that Atty. PeAa engaged in misconduct during the eviction of tenants from a property purchased by Urban Bank from the Isabela Sugar Company (ISC). The bank contends that Atty. PeAa misrepresented his authority and used a letter of authority granted by them to pursue unwarranted compensation after successfully carrying out the eviction. This letter, dated December 19, 1994, was purportedly issued to formalize Atty. PeAa's role, though the bank maintained that the transaction was between ISC and Atty. PeAa.
Respondent's Defense
In his defense, Atty. PeAa argued that an oral contract existed between him and Urban Bank and that the letter of authority was merely a formalization of an already established attorney-client relationship. He claimed that there was no deceit involved as there was no need to mislead the complainant since he believed he had a valid engagement.
Investigation and Findings
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP's commissioner, upon reviewing the evidence, determined that Urban Bank's complaint was retaliatory and lacked merit. The commissioner found that the bank had benefited from Atty. PeAa's services without raising issues until compensation was demanded. The investigation concluded that the actions taken by Atty. PeAa did not constitute the alleged misconduct.
Decision of the IBP Board of Governors
The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint based on the findings of Commissioner Navarro, articulating that the evidence presented by Urban Bank did not substantiate any claims of deceit or misconduct. They highlighted that Urban Bank had not contested Atty. PeAa's actions during his engagement until a demand for payment was made, which suggested an acceptance of his services.
Appeal and Final Ruling
Subsequently, an appeal was made by the complainant, represented by different
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 4863)
Case Overview
- The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Urban Bank, Inc. against Atty. Magdaleno M. PeAa.
- The complaint accuses the respondent of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Factual Background
- On December 1, 1994, Urban Bank purchased a parcel of land from Isabela Sugar Company (ISC), which included a condition for ISC to evict all occupants.
- ISC engaged the services of Atty. PeAa to carry out the eviction.
- A letter of authority was issued by Urban Bank to Atty. PeAa on December 15, 1994, clarifying that ISC contracted his services.
- Atty. PeAa later requested a modification of this letter, leading to a new letter of authority dated December 19, 1994, which Urban Bank issued, incorporating some of PeAa's suggestions.
- The eviction was successfully completed after over thirteen months, and Atty. PeAa filed a collection suit against Urban Bank for compensation related to his legal services.
Allegations Against Respondent
- The complaint alleges that Atty. PeAa misused the letter of authority to claim compensation and expenses from Urban Bank.
- It asserts that the act of