G.R. No.: A.M. No. 849
Date: September 10, 1941

Case Title: In the Matter of JUAN S. RUSTIA, Attorney. The Solicitor General Mr. Ozaeta and Solicitor Mr. Alikpala in representation of the Court. Mr. Juan S. Rustia in his own representation.

FACTS

The Solicitor General filed a complaint on April 6, 1938, seeking the disbarment of attorney Juan S. Rustia for malpractice and unprofessional conduct. The charges were based on his actions in connection with civil cases involving the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan in Laguna. Specifically:
1. After the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal (in G.R. No. 45460 ) of Civil Case No. 3052, which sought reversion of the hacienda to the state, Rustia published and caused to be published articles in “The Tribune” (February 26, 1938) and “El Debate” (March 9-10, 1938) that grossly misrepresented and distorted the Court’s decision.
2. He organized and spoke at a public meeting in San Pedro, Laguna, on March 27, 1938, where he gave a twisted interpretation of the same Supreme Court decision, leading his clients (the town’s residents) to believe they had achieved a victory.
3. In a subsequent expropriation case (Civil Case No. 6875) filed by the Commonwealth, Rustia appeared as counsel for the municipality of San Pedro and attempted to mislead the trial court. He falsely asserted that the Supreme Court had declared the entire hacienda to be property of the Commonwealth of the Philippines by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, a holding the Court never made.
4. Rustia engaged in these acts to continue collecting fees from the residents of San Pedro by making them believe, falsely, that the Colegio de San Jose, Inc. would be ejected and they would be declared owners of the hacienda. He also used an entity called “Oras Na, Inc.” to distribute posters and pamphlets propagating these false claims.
During the proceedings, Rustia admitted to publishing the articles in “El Debate.” The articles explicitly and falsely quoted the Supreme Court as having declared: “DESDE EL MOMENTO EN QUE LA HACIENDA FUE CONFISCADA POR EL REINO DE ESPAÑA LA MISMA DEJO DE SER DE LA PROPIEDAD DE LOS HIJOS DE DON ESTEBAN RODRIGUEZ DE FIGUEROA, DEL COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE O DE LOS PADRES JESUITAS Y SE CONVIRTIO EN PROPIEDAD DEL COMMONWEALTH DE FILIPINAS POR VIRTUD DE LA CESION MEDIANTE EL TRATADO DE PARIS…” This was a complete fabrication, as the Court had made no such declaration.

ISSUE

Whether attorney Juan S. Rustia is guilty of malpractice and violation of his oath as a lawyer, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court, sitting en banc, found attorney Juan S. Rustia GUILTY of malpractice and of having violated his oath of office. The Court held that while a lawyer is entitled to earn fees, he must do so honestly, without resorting to tricks or means forbidden by his duty to the Court and to himself. A lawyer, upon admission to the bar, takes a solemn oath not to commit falsehood, nor consent to its commission in the courts, nor to promote groundless suits, and to conduct himself with entire fidelity to the courts and to his clients. Rustia openly breached this oath by uttering falsehoods to secure gains he otherwise would not have obtained. He demonstrated a lack of fidelity to the Supreme Court by misinterpreting its decisions, to the Court of First Instance of Laguna by misleading it, and to his own clients. For these acts and conduct, he incurred malpractice and deserved exemplary punishment. Consequently, the Court suspended Juan S. Rustia from the practice of law for a period of FIVE (5) YEARS, prohibiting him from practicing directly or indirectly anywhere in the Philippines during that time.