AC 1409; (December, 1982) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1409. December 30, 1982. ADELINA C. ADRIAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Adelina C. Adrias filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., accusing him of gross malpractice. She alleged he took advantage of her innocence by violating the warranty in a sales contract for a restaurant business, which he caused to be executed in her favor, and subsequently harassed her by attaching and levying her properties to enforce a claim under a separate lease agreement. The claim was based on a default judgment from the City Court of Manila ordering her to vacate premises and pay monetary obligations.
Respondent denied the charges. He asserted his participation was limited to preparing the sublease contract for his wife, Esperanza de Guzman, who was the actual party to the transactions. He was not a signatory to the deed of sale, having only affixed his signature to give marital consent. The levy was a valid enforcement of a writ of execution from a final default judgment. Complainant’s subsequent petitions to challenge this judgment, including a certiorari petition dismissed by the Court of Appeals, were unsuccessful.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. committed gross malpractice warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic rests on the absence of clear preponderant evidence to sustain the charges, coupled with the presumption of innocence favoring a lawyer. The investigation established that respondent was not a party to the sales contract; his role was merely to give marital consent. Thus, any allegation of his personal violation of its warranty was unfounded.
Regarding the levy, it was a legitimate enforcement proceeding based on a final and executory judgment. Complainant’s recourse through multiple legal remedies, all resolved against her, confirmed the levy’s validity and negated claims of fraud or harassment. The Court noted that while respondent should have exercised greater prudence given his wife’s involvement, the accusation he exploited his legal knowledge was implausible, as complainant had been represented by six different lawyers throughout the proceedings. The evidence militated against complainant’s claims, failing to overcome the presumption of respondent’s innocence and proper conduct as an officer of the court.