G.R. No. 11217, October 07, 2020
Lino C. Bernal, Jr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Ernesto M. Prias, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lino C. Bernal, Jr., the City Treasurer of Antipolo City, alleged that respondent Atty. Ernesto M. Prias attempted to redeem a property registered under Solid Builders, Inc. by claiming to be the authorized representative of the delinquent taxpayer. Respondent paid the delinquent real property taxes in December 2014. Complainant advised him to submit proof of his authority to redeem on behalf of the registered owner by a specified deadline. Respondent failed to submit any such documentation. Consequently, complainant canceled the redemption payment and informed respondent that the payment was ineffective for redemption purposes.
In his defense, respondent claimed he was the actual possessor of the property, using it for his business, and argued this gave him a legal interest sufficient to redeem it. He asserted he had negotiated to purchase the property from the registered owners, though no formal agreement materialized. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable for misrepresentation, noting his claim of authority was unsupported and that the registered owners had, in fact, designated a different individual to redeem the property.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto M. Prias violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through his conduct in attempting to redeem the subject property.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to uphold the law and avoid deceitful conduct extends to all dealings, not just those with clients. Respondent’s act of falsely representing himself as an authorized representative to a government office constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct. His claim of being an “actual possessor” did not confer the legal interest required under the law to redeem property on another’s behalf, a fact he, as a lawyer, should have known.
The legal logic is clear: the practice of law is a privilege demanding the highest standards of honesty. By making a material misrepresentation to a public official to influence an administrative process, respondent engaged in unlawful and deceitful conduct that undermined confidence in the legal system. His actions demonstrated a lack of the good moral character required of all members of the Bar. Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years, with a warning that a repetition would be met with a more severe penalty.