ORTIGAS PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ATTY. EUGENIO S. TUMULAK, AC. NO. 11385, 2017-03-14
Facts:
Complainant Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation owned the
parcel of land located in Ortigas Avenue Extension, Pasig City.
The complainant alleges that at around 11:00 a.m. of
November 29, 2012, Atty. Tumulak,
accompanied by uniformed guards of the Nationwide Security Agency, Inc.,
unlawfully entered and took control of the entrance and exit of the property.
It appears that prior to the incident, Atty. Tumulak had furnished several
documents to the complainant, including the deed of assignment executed by one
Henry F. Rodriguez as the administrator of the Estate of the late Don
Hermogenes R. Rodriguez designating Atty. Tumulak as an assignee.
The documents furnished by Atty. Tumulak were all related to
the intestate proceedings of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez
which involved the claim of the heirs of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez to
several parcels of land situated all over the country.
The complainant charges Atty. Tumulak with deceit,
dishonesty and fraud for claiming to have coordinated with the proper
government agencies prior to the illegal and forcible intrusion.[3] The
complainant manifests that as a lawyer, Atty. Tumulak ought to know that the
claim of his principal in the property was barred by res judicata due to the
valid issuance of a Torrens title under its name. Accordingly, his conduct
constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer deserving of sanction.
Atty. Tumulak denies having been present when the security
guards of Nationwide Security Agency entered the complainant's property. He
insists that the allegations against him were pure hearsay because Ms. Montero,
the representative of the complainant, had no personal knowledge of the
incident; that the documents he had furnished to the complainant included
records of the intestate proceedings in the RTC involving the Estate of the
late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez; that he had no hand in
procuring the documents; that he did not himself enter the property; and that
the entry into the property was effected by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of
execution.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP found Atty. Tumulak to
have violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Commissioner Espina recommended the suspension of Atty. Tumulak
from the practice of law for two years.
Issues:
disbarment of Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak for his participation
in the forcible intrusion into the complainant's property.
Did Atty. Tumulak violate Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility when he facilitated the implementation
of the writ of execution and the entry into the complainant's property?
Ruling:
Atty. Tumulak deserves to be severely sanctioned for
violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
a) Atty. Tumulak knew, or ought to know, that property
claims based on Spanish title can no longer be cited as legitimate basis for
ownership as of 16 February 1976 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892... b)
Respondent lawyer, as a long-time practitioner (admitted to the Bar in 1971),
is presumed to know that the Supreme Court has promulgated a case specifically
addressing the fake titles arising from spurious "Deed of Assignment"
of the supposed Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. This is the 2005 case of
Evangelista, et al. vs. Santiago where
the same modus as the one adopted by respondent lawyer, was used by an
"assignee" in claiming properties located in Paranque, Las Pinas,
Muntinlupa, Cavitc, Batangas, Pasay, Taguig, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Quezon
City, Caloocan, Bulacan, and Rizal, allegedly as part of the Estate of Don
Hermogenes Rodriguez;
We find respondent's actions highly questionable and
contrary to legal protocol: (i) the court documents were issued by the
RTC-Iriga City, Br. 94; (ii) it "affects" a property located in Pasig
City; (iii) respondent lawyer became the "assignee" of a Pasig City
property; (iv) no taxes were paid for the "assignment"; (v)
assistance of the Sheriff of Pasig was not enlisted by respondent, instead, he
enlists the help of the Sheriff of Manila; (vi) all that the Sheriff of Manila
did was to deliver the RTC-Iriga, Br. 34 court documents to complainant but
with a twist; the Sheriff and respondent lawyer were escorted by a phalanx of
security guards; (vii) the uniformed guards, obviously upon instruction, took
over and/or controlled the gates of OPDC offices with attendant force and
intimidation. Respondent lawyer's claimed innocence cannot prevail over these
illegalities of which he, or his agents, had a hand.
Atty. Tumulak cannot deny his personal participation in the
unlawful and forcible intrusion into the property just because the complainant
did not establish his physical presence thereat at the time. In fact, such
physical participation was not even necessary in order to properly implicate
him in personal responsibility for the intrusion after he admitted having
furnished to the complainant the deed of assignment and other documents as the
source of his authority.
Atty. Tumulak had been discharging his role as the assignee
since the time of the execution of the deed of assignment on March 22, 2010.
Considering that he had been in charge of doing all the actions necessary to
enforce the interest of his principal since March 22, 2010, and that the
forcible intrusion complained about occurred on November 29, 2012, or more than
two years from the execution of the deed of assignment, he is reasonably and
ineluctably presumed to have coordinated all the actions leading to the
intrusion.
Finally, even assuming that the amended decision was valid
and enforceable, Atty. Tumulak could not legitimately resort to forcible
intrusion to advance the interest of the assignor. The more appropriate action
for him would be to cause the annulment of the complainant's title instead of
forcibly entering the property with the aid of armed security personnel.
Atty. Tumulak was guilty of misconduct for circumventing
existing laws and disregarding settled rulings in order to commit injustice against
the complainant. His conduct betrayed his Lawyer's Oath "to support [the]
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein." He breached Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 -A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
To the best of his ability, every lawyer is expected to
respect and abide by the law, and to avoid any act or omission that is contrary
thereto. The lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his or
her commendable character but also inspires in the public a becoming respect
and obedience to the law.
The sworn obligation of every lawyer under the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility to respect the law and the legal
processes is a continuing condition for retaining membership in the Legal
Profession. The lawyer must act and comport himself or herself in such a manner
that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the Legal Profession. Members of the Bar are reminded, therefore,
that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than to
seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest
scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act that warrants
disciplinary action against him or her.
The suspension from the practice of law or disbarment of a
lawyer is justified if he or she proves unworthy of the trust and confidence
imposed by the Lawyer's Oath, or is otherwise found to be wanting in that
honesty and integrity that must characterize the members of the Bar in the
performance of their professional duties.
Comments
Post a Comment