Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

EN BANC
[A.C. No. 9574. June 21, 2016.]
MYRNA M. DEVEZA , complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL

PRADO , respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
Before the Court is a Complaint-Af davit 1 for disbarment led by Myrna M.

Deveza (complainant) against respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado (Atty. Del
Prado) for dishonesty and for acts unbecoming a lawyer.
In her complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged, among others, the following:
2. The charge arose from the following facts:
(a) In February 2003, Atty. Alexander del Prado bought my lot located
at No. 3242 Malvar St., Brgy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City,
consisting of 633.80 sq. meters and covered by Transfer Certi cate
of Title No. 178828 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for
P1,500.00 per square meters on installment basis.
(b) To evidence the said sale, we executed a Contract to Sell. Atty. Del
Prado took all the copies of the Contract to Sell on the pretext that
he will have the document notarized but he never gave me a copy of
the said document.
(c) Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation to pay me the purchase
price of the said lot by leaving a balance of P565,950.00.
(d) When I sent him a demand letter for the payment of his obligation
and/or rescission of sale, he called me and told me that he will meet
me and my son at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch, where he will pay his
unpaid balance. He likewise asked me to bring the title over the
property.
(e) Upon meeting Atty. Del Prado at Jollibee Muñoz Branch, he asked
for the title of the property and I showed it to him. Then Atty. Del
Prado brought out a completely lled up Deed of Sale and he asked
us to sign it before he will give us his payment.
(f) After we have signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, he gave us
P5,000.00 and he told us that he would have the document rst
notarized before he will give us his complete payment. . . .
(g) At that juncture, Atty. Del Prado tried to put inside his bag our title
over the property but I was able to grab it from him. CAIHTE
(h) Atty. Del Prado never paid us the balance of the purchase price for
the lot he bought from us.
(i) [Worst], Atty. Del Prado used the Deed of Absolute Sale that he
made us sign by means of fraud as evidence in the civil case I led
against him for rescission of contract [that misled] the court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
xxx xxx xxx. 2
In a Resolution, 3 dated September 3, 2012, the Court required Atty. Del Prado to
comment on the complaint-affidavit but failed to do so.
Pursuant to the Court Resolution, 4 dated November 18, 2013, the complaint was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On June 18, 2014, the case was set for mandatory conference but only the
counsel of complainant appeared. Despite due notice, Atty. Del Prado did not attend the
mandatory conference. The parties were then required to submit their respective
position papers but Atty. Del Prado again did not heed to the order of the IBP.
On September 2, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, 5 stated
that Atty. Del Prado's failure to answer the complaint despite several notices and his
continuous absence in the scheduled hearings shows his outing resistance to the
lawful orders of the court and illustrates his despiciency for his oath of of ce as a
lawyer. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Del Prado be meted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law and as a member of the bar for a period of two (2)
years.
In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-014, 6 dated January 30, 2015, the IBP-
Board of Governors adopted and approved with modi cation the report and
recommendation of the CBD and suspended Atty. Del Prado from the practice of law
for a period of five (5) years.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that they
possess and continue to possess the legal quali cations for it. As vanguards of our
legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal pro ciency but also a high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. 7 Because of their important
role in the society, the Court shall not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for any conduct
that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor, whether such conduct
was committed in their professional or in private capacity. 8
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility speci cally mandates all
lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
of the same code proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. They should refrain from doing any act which might
lessen in any degree the con dence and trust reposed by the public in the delity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession. 9
In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short of the
standard of the norm of conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant
by making her sign the deed of sale and making her believe that he would pay in full the
balance of the purchase price after he had the document notarized. Complainant waited
for Atty. Del Prado to make good his promise to pay but despite several demands, he
continued reneging on his obligation which prompted her to file a case against him.
Moreover, Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court
and IBP-CBD to le his comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory
conference despite due notice. His continued de ance of the orders of the Court and
the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which
cannot be tolerated. 10 Atty. Del Prado should bear in mind that he is a lawyer and an
of cer of the court who is duty bound to obey and respect the court processes. He
must acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to
their authority over him as a member of the bar. 11
WHEREFORE , nding respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court
hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for Five (5) years effective upon
receipt of this decision with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all courts in the country and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of
this decision be appended to the personal record Atty. Alexander Del Prado in the
Office of the Bar Confidant. DETACa
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, * J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* On Official Leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2. Id. at 1-2.
3. Id. at 29.
4. Id. at 32.
5. Id. at 51-53.
6. Id. at 49-50.
7. Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 16 (2012).
8. Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 330 (2006).

9. Maligsa v. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912, 917 (1997).
10. Supra note 7, at 15.

11. Toledo v. Atty. Abalos, 374 Phil. 15, 18 (1999).

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 9574. June 21, 2016.]

MYRNA M. DEVEZA , complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL

Before the Court is a Complaint-Af davit 1 for disbarment led by Myrna M.

1. Rollo, pp. 1-2.

8. Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 330 (2006).

10. Supra note 7, at 15.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like