A.C. No. 11385 March 14, 2017
Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation, represented by Janice Montero, Complainant vs. Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation owned a parcel of land in Pasig City covered by a Torrens title. It alleged that on November 29, 2012, Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak, accompanied by uniformed security guards, unlawfully entered and took control of the property’s entrance and exit. Atty. Tumulak had previously furnished documents, including a deed of assignment from an administrator of the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, designating him as an assignee for claims related to intestate proceedings in Iriga City. The complainant charged that Atty. Tumulak, as a lawyer, knew or ought to have known that such claims based on Spanish titles were barred by res judicata and Presidential Decree No. 892, and that a Torrens title could not be attacked collaterally.
In his defense, Atty. Tumulak denied personal presence during the entry, claimed the allegations were hearsay, and insisted the entry was effected by a sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution from the Iriga court. He asserted he had no hand in procuring the assignment documents and did not personally enter the property.

ISSUE

Did Atty. Tumulak violate Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Tumulak guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ findings, which detailed multiple professional violations. Atty. Tumulak, a lawyer since 1971, was presumed to know that property claims based on Spanish titles were extinguished by law and that the Supreme Court had previously denounced the same spurious “Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez” scheme in Evangelista v. Santiago. His actions in facilitating the forcible takeover, using security guards instead of pursuing a proper direct action to challenge the Torrens title, demonstrated a blatant disregard for legal processes.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer must uphold the law and respect legal procedures. Atty. Tumulak’s conduct—enlisting a sheriff from Manila instead of Pasig for a property in Pasig, proceeding without proof of paid taxes on the assignment, and orchestrating an extrajudicial takeover—constituted deceit, dishonesty, and a gross violation of his duty to avoid unlawful means. The two-year suspension was deemed appropriate and condign for the prejudice caused and the misconduct committed, serving as a stern warning against similar infractions. The decision is immediately executory.