Heirs of Carlos V Linsangan Case Digest

HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS vs ATTY.
Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement

JAIME S. LINSANGAN was likewise approved by the trial court. no mention in
A.C. No. 11494, July 24, 2017 the record, however, that the CA and SCA were
presented for approval before several courts where
FACTS: the other cases were pending.
This is a petition for disbarment against Atty. Jaime
Linsangan filed by Complainants who are the children In 2015, Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of
of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos (Juan). Absolute Sale with a certain Helen Perez covering the
Respondent acted as counsel for their late father in entire 12k sqm of the subject property for a purchase
several cases, one of which involving the recovery of price of 150 Million Pesos. Atty. Linsangan sold the
a parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. entire property.
Complainants alleged that Atty. Linsangan forced
them to sign pleadings and documents, sold the In 2016, complainants wrote a letter to Atty.
parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City in cahoots Linsangan revoking the SPA which they executed in
with complainants' estranged mother, and evaded the latter's favor. In said letter, complainants accused
payment of income taxes when he divided his share in Atty. Linsangan of conniving with their mother, Bella
the subject property as his supposed attorney's fees N. Vda. De Carlos, in submitting the CA and in selling
to his wife and children, all in violation of his oath as the subject property. Complainants, however,
lawyer. recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which they
proposed that the latter be paid on the basis of
The parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntilupa City quantum meruit instead of fifty percent (50%) of the
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. subject property.
139061 with an area of 12,331 square meters was
previously owned by the Spouses Felix and Felipa Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental
Carlos. Their son, Teofilo Carlos (Teofilo), convinced Compromise Agreement was never questioned by the
them to transfer said title to his name with a promise complainants until now and that they had never
to distribute the same to his brothers and sisters. requested for a copy thereof from him. Atty.
Teofilo delivered the owner's duplicate copy of the title Linsangan admits that the subject of the sale with
to his brother, Juan. However, Teofilo sold the entire Helen is the property in Alabang, Muntinlupa City and
property to Pedro Balbanero (Pedro). Pedro, however, that complainants were not given a share from the
failed to pay the agreed installment payments. payments because such were specifically made
applicable to his and his family's share in the subject
During the pendency of about 6 cases property only. Atty. Linsangan also contends that the
likewise involving the same subject property, In 1997, proposal that he be paid on the basis of quantum
Atty. Linsangan and Juan executed a Contract for meruit is only for the purpose of reducing his 50%
Professional Services enumerating the cases being share as stated in the Contract for Professional
handled by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. Services he executed with Juan, so that the balance
(par 5) CLIENT hereby confirms bounds thereof may accrue to complainants.
himself to pay ATTORNEY a contingent fee in an
amount equivalent to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the ISSUE:
market value of the property, or portion, which may be Whether or not respondent is guilty of
recovered, or the zonal value, whichever is higher. violating his lawyer's oath.
A Supplemental Compromise Agreement in
2009 was submitted by the heirs of Juan and Atty. RULING:
Linsangan, dividing among them the 7.5k sqm-portion After a careful review of the record of the
of the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the case, the Court finds that respondent committed acts
heirs of Juan and 3,750 square meters to Atty. in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby
Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for Professional warranting the Court's exercise of its disciplinary
Services. In said Supplemental Compromise power.
Agreement, Atty. Linsangan waived in favor of his wife
and children his 3,750 square meter share.
these acts are in direct contravention of Article constitutes a breach of his client's trust and a violation
1491(5) of the Civil Code which forbids lawyers from of Canon 16 of the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer is not
acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money
that has been the subject of litigation in which they for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him
have taken part by virtue of their profession. While attorney’s fees. The failure of an attorney to return the
Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, client's money upon demand gives rise to the
which states that " the lawyer should not purchase presumption that he has misappropriated it for his
any interests in the subject matter of the litigation own use to the prejudice and violation of the general
which he is conducting," is no longer reproduced in morality, as well as of professional ethics; it also
the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), impairs public confidence in the legal profession and
such proscription still applies considering that Canon I deserves punishment. In short, a lawyer's unjustified
of the CPR is clear in requiring that "a lawyer shall withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
and promote respect for law and legal process"
and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to the relationship of attorney and client has consistently
take an oath to "obey the laws as well as the legal been treated as one of special trust and confidence.
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." An attorney must therefore exercise utmost good faith
Here, the law transgressed by Atty. Linsangan is and fairness in all his relationship with his client.
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, in violation of his Measured against this standard, respondent's act
lawyer's oath. clearly fell short and had, in fact, placed his personal
interest above that of his clients. Considering the
Atty. Linsangan, at the guise of merely waiving foregoing violations of his lawyer's oath, Article
portions of the subject property in favor of his wife and 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and
children, actually divided his attorney's fee with Canon 16 of the CPR, the Court deems it appropriate
persons who are not licensed to practice law in to impose upon respondent the penalty of six (6)
contravention of Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR. months suspension from the practice of law.
Another misconduct committed by Atty. Linsangan WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan
was his act of selling the entire 12,331 square meters LIABLE for violations of his lawyer's oath, Article
property and making it appear that he was specifically 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and
authorized to do so by complainants as well as by the Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
other persons to whom portions of the property had and he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
been previously adjudicated. However, a perusal of law for SIX (6) months effective from the date of his
the supposed Special Power of Attorney attached to receipt of this Decision. Let copies of this Decision be
the Deed of Absolute Sale, save for that executed by circulated to all courts of the country for their
his wife and children, only authorizes Atty. Linsangan information and guidance, and spread in the personal
to represent complainants in the litigation of cases record of Atty. Linsangan.
involving Juan's properties. Nothing in said Special
Power of Attorney authorizes Atty. Linsangan to sell
the entire property including complainants' undivided
share therein.
Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having

received the downpayment for the property from
Helen. Atty. Linsangan does not also deny failing to
give complainants' share for the reason that he
applied said payment as his share in the property. In
so doing, Atty. Linsangan determined all by himself
that the downpayment accrues to him and
immediately appropriated the same, without the
knowledge and consent of the complainants. Such act

Heirs of Carlos V Linsangan Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Carlos V Linsangan Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Carlos V Linsangan Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS vs ATTY.

Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement

Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having

You might also like