Respondent lawyer entered into a Compromise Agreement with the defendant in an unlawful detainer case to sell the subject property of the complainant which was co-owned by the latter as evidenced by an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was executed by the complainant in favour of the respondent as the former was working at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City while the subject property was located in Negros Oriental. However, such SPA did not grant specific authority to the respondent to sell the subject property.
By acting beyond the scope of his authority as evidenced in the SPA, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent lawyer violated Canons 5, 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found respondent lawyer guilty for violations of Canons 5, 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
