G.R. No. A.C. No. 10699 (Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4793). October 06, 2020.
Wilfredo C. Caballero, Complainant, vs. Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Wilfredo C. Caballero was an awardee of a low-cost housing unit from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in 1995, with a corresponding real estate loan. On January 27, 1997, due to financial constraints, he transferred his rights over the property to respondent Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana for P60,000.00 via a Deed of Transfer of Rights, with the condition that the respondent would assume the obligation of paying the remaining monthly amortizations to GSIS. In 2004, complainant received a letter from GSIS informing him of increased loan arrearages. He confronted respondent, who promised to pay and handle the transfer of the account. By 2009, the loan had ballooned further, revealing respondent had not settled the account. Complainant informed GSIS of his decision to voluntarily surrender the property and furnished respondent a copy. In 2010, the parties went to GSIS, where complainant signed a waiver to cancel his account, and they agreed respondent would purchase the property. The GSIS later cancelled the Deed of Conditional Sale due to unpaid arrearages. In 2011, complainant executed an Affidavit of Waiver relinquishing his rights to respondent. By 2014, GSIS issued a final demand showing the unpaid obligation had ballooned to nearly P3 million due to non-payment, with the last payment recorded in 1999. Complainant filed an administrative case alleging respondent’s empty promises, misrepresentations, and deceit led to the ballooning debt, jeopardizing his retirement benefits. In his Comment, respondent denied dishonesty, claimed he was merely assisting complainant with a personal case, and asserted the understanding was that complainant would continue paying the amortizations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct in his private dealings with the complainant.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his disbarment. The Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors that respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found that respondent’s denial of the Deed of Transfer of Rights and his claim of merely assisting complainant were deceitful evasions of the civil obligations he voluntarily assumed. Respondent profited from the property by leasing it while willfully refusing to pay the assumed GSIS obligations, violating the basic tenets of honesty and good faith and his oath as a lawyer. The Court deemed the IBP’s recommended penalty of six-month suspension too lenient. Given the circumstances and respondent’s propensity for unethical acts, which diminish public trust in the legal profession, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Respondent’s name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.