G.R. No. A.C. No. 9457. April 5, 2022.
ABNER R. MANGUBAT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REYNALDO L. HERRERA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Abner R. Mangubat, an heir of Aurelia Rellora Mangubat, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera. In May 1998, Gaudencio Mangubat (Aurelia’s husband and Abner’s father) engaged Atty. Herrera’s services to institute a complaint for revival of judgment (Civil Case No. P-2145). The complaint listed Gaudencio and the “Heirs of Aurelia represented by Raquel Azada” as plaintiffs, including Abner, but no special power of attorney from the heirs was presented. A Compromise Agreement was approved by the court on February 22, 2001. Gaudencio died on January 31, 2002. Atty. Herrera continued to file pleadings in court after Gaudencio’s death without informing the court of his death and without authority from the heirs. On December 18, 2003, Atty. Herrera received the monetary award of ₱91,280.00 from the opposing party but only deposited it with the clerk of court on April 7, 2005. During this interval, he drafted and notarized a deed of conditional sale involving a portion of the subject property for the opposing party’s representative. Atty. Herrera also filed a motion to compel the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera should be disbarred for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes. The Court DISBARRED Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera. The Court found him guilty of multiple violations:
1. Violation of Canon 5 (Duty to Keep Abreast of Legal Development) for misrepresenting that Raquel Azada represented the heirs without authority.
2. Violation of Rule 10.01 (Duty of Fidelity to the Courts) for making false representations to the court.
3. Violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority, specifically by filing pleadings for Gaudencio after his death and for the heirs without their consent.
4. Violation of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court for failing to inform the court of his client Gaudencio’s death.
5. Violation of Rule 15.03 (Duty to Avoid Conflict of Interest) for drafting and notarizing a deed of conditional sale for the adverse party’s representative while still claiming to represent the heirs’ interests.
6. Violation of Canon 16 and Rules 16.01 and 16.02 (Duty as Trustee of Client’s Funds) for failing to immediately account for and remit the ₱91,280.00 judgment award received on December 18, 2003, and for commingling these funds by depositing them with the clerk of court only on April 7, 2005.
7. Violation of Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 (Duty to Serve with Due Diligence) for negligence in handling the case and failing to keep his clients informed.
The Court considered the presence of aggravating circumstances, including a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct, vulnerability of the victims, and respondent’s substantial experience in law practice. These egregious violations warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment.