Bautista vs.

Gonzales
A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990

FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment was lodged against Ramon A. Gonzales by herein complainant Angel
L. Bautista, on the grounds of respondent’s violation of the Code of Responsibility and
commission of serious misconduct through the following acts:

(a) By having his clients, the Fortunados, pay all costs and expenses of litigation as
well as a contingent fee of 50% of the property covered by the same;
(b) by acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil Case No. Q-15143, wherein
Eusebio Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants and, without said case being
terminated, acting as counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15490;
(c) by transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which
properties are the subject of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-15143, while the
case was still pending;
(d) by inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract
with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision
of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929,
claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees
from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of
Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
(e) by submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City falsified documents;
(f) by committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his
client;
(g) by harassing the complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis
before the Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City;
(h) by deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office by
making false assertion of facts in his pleadings; and
(i) by filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not intentionally
tell a he, he does not tell the truth either."

Respondent Gonzales, in his answer, denied the accusations made by complainant against him.
Thereafter, the Court referred the case to the OSG for investigation, report and
recommendation. The OSG conducted an investigation and required the parties to file their
respective memoranda.

Gonzales then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that his constitutional right
to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated due to the long delay in the
resolution of the complaint. The OSG explained that the delay in the investigation is due to the
fact that both parties have filed numerous requests for postponement of scheduled hearings
and motions for extension of time to file their respective memoranda.

The OSG found that the respondent committed acts of misconduct and recommended for the
suspension of Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales for a period of six (6) months. Respondent Gonzales
then filed a motion to refer the case to the IBP for investigation and disposition pursuant to
Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court.

ISSUES:
(a) Whether or not the preliminary investigation conducted by the OSG was limited to the
determination of sufficient ground to proceed with the case.

(b) Whether or not the OSG still has to file an administrative complaint against Gonzales
under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court.
(c) Whether or not respondent committed the acts of misconduct alleged by the
complainant.

RULING:
The procedural issue raised by the respondent that the preliminary investigation conducted by
the OSG was limited to the determination of whether or not there is sufficient ground to
proceed with the case is untenable. In the same light, reference/transfer of cases or complaints
against lawyers to the IBP is not mandatory. Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 139-B state that: the
Supreme Court may conduct disciplinary proceedings without the intervention of the IBP by
referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court
or judge of a lower court. Moreover, the SC shall directly review the report and
recommendation made by the investigating official and shall thereafter base its final action on
the report, recommendation, and evidence presented by the parties during the investigation.
Furthermore, at the time Rule 138-B of the Revised Rules of Court took effect, the investigation
conducted by the OSG has been substantially completed. Only pending cases at the time of
effectivity of Rule 138-B are covered and thus, shall be referred or transferred to the IBP for
investigation and disposition. Therefore, this is no need to refer the case to the IBP as the OSG
has thoroughly conducted an investigation on the merits of the case.

The Court finds after a careful review of the records of the case, coupled with the report and
recommendation made by the OSG that respondent Gonzales committed acts of misconduct
which warrant the exercise of its disciplinary power. Record shows that Gonzales in executing
the document transferring one-half (1/2) of the subject properties to himself, respondent
violated the law expressly prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his client's property or interest
involved in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession [Article 1491,
New Civil Code]. In the case of Hernandez v. Villanueva, 40 Phil. 774 (1920), the court
pronounced that purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach
of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice.

The contention of Gonzales that since the rule prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his client's
property or interest involved in any litigation no longer appears in the new Code of Professional
Responsibility, there would no longer be a ground for disciplinary action is without merit as the
act would still be a transgression of Canon 1. Moreover, Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules
of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to obey the laws [of the Republic of the
Philippines] as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." Rule 138,
Sec. 27 holds that any violation of this oath may be a ground for suspension or disbarment of a
lawyer by the Supreme Court

The Court finds clearly established in this case that on four counts the respondent violated the
law and the rules governing the conduct of a member of the legal profession. Further, the Court
agrees with the Solicitor General that, considering the nature of the offenses committed by
respondent and the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent lawyer should be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

WHEREFORE, finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A. Gonzales committed serious