G.R. No. 12030 , September 29, 2020
Lourdes E. Elanga and Nilo Elanga, represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact Evelyn E. Veloso and Melly Elanga, Complainants, vs. Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Lourdes and Nilo Elanga filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok, the counsel for the opposing parties in a pending civil case for partition involving a disputed lot. The core dispute in the civil case centered on the Elangas’ possession of the title after Nilo redeemed the property and the plaintiffs’ failure to reimburse him. A final and executory court decision ordered the plaintiffs to reimburse Nilo, but they failed to settle the obligation.
During the pendency of this litigation, Atty. Pasok engaged in a series of transactions concerning the disputed property. He notarized a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which Lourdes alleged was forged, and a Real Estate Mortgage over the property executed by his clients without the knowledge or consent of the Elangas or the court. He also prepared and notarized related documents, including an Agreement and a Promissory Note. Crucially, Atty. Pasok received a portion (P23,782.00) of the mortgage proceeds for himself and retained the sum of P162,178.03, which was the exact amount Nilo had paid for the redemption and which the court had ordered his clients to reimburse.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath through his actions in the transactions involving the property under litigation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Pasok guilty of multiple violations and suspended him from the practice of law for three years. The legal logic is anchored on his breach of fiduciary duties and the prohibition against dealing with property under litigation. First, by facilitating the mortgage of the disputed property without court approval and without the consent of the opposing co-owners (the Elangas), he engaged in conduct that was dishonest, deceitful, and prejudicial to the administration of justice. This violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR.
Second, his act of notarizing the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, despite Lourdes’s claim of forgery and the clear conflict of interest, constituted a failure to ensure the authenticity of the signatories, violating his duties as a notary public. Third, and most egregiously, his personal receipt and retention of the mortgage proceeds—specifically the P162,178.03 earmarked as reimbursement for Nilo—converted funds for his own benefit. This act constituted gross misconduct, a betrayal of his oath to “do no falsehood,” and a failure to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and outweighs his duty to his client, especially when his actions undermine a judicial proceeding and appropriate funds for personal gain.