A.C. No. 12115. October 15, 2018. ANITA F. ALAG, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JUAN C. SENUPE, JR., RESPONDENT.
FACTS

This administrative case for disbarment arose from an intestate proceeding concerning the estate of Salvacion Novo Lopez. Respondent Atty. Juan C. Senupe, Jr. was the counsel for the court-appointed administrator, Reytaliano Alag. In that capacity, respondent filed a motion to take over a specific lot (Lot 646-B-2), alleging it remained part of the estate. The motion was granted. During execution, a tiller, Arnulfo Sobrevega, initially refused to surrender the lot, claiming a mortgage from complainant Anita Alag, an heir. Later, Arnulfo executed an affidavit, prepared and notarized by respondent, stating he was actually a mortgagee but had already surrendered possession, and that Alag had persuaded him to falsely claim he was merely a paid laborer. Based on this, respondent moved to dismiss his own pending motion for a writ of possession as moot.
Complainant Alag then filed this disbarment case before the IBP, alleging respondent committed deceit and misconduct. She claimed respondent knowingly suppressed evidence that the lot was no longer part of the estate and that, by preparing Arnulfo’s affidavit, he improperly dealt with a party having an interest adverse to his client. During the IBP proceedings, respondent failed to file a required answer. Instead, he filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, which was granted, and later a Motion to Dismiss. Complainant failed to comply with the order to provide particulars, and neither party submitted position papers as later ordered.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Juan C. Senupe, Jr. should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on the allegations.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment but reprimanded respondent for his procedural infractions during the IBP investigation. On the substantive allegations, the Court found no clear evidence of ethical breach. Respondent’s actions concerning the inclusion of Lot 646-B-2 in the estate proceedings and his preparation of Arnulfo’s affidavit were intrinsically related to his duty as counsel in the ongoing intestate case. The veracity of claims regarding the lot’s ownership and the circumstances of Arnulfo’s possession are evidentiary matters properly within the competence and jurisdiction of the probate court to resolve. An administrative complaint is not the correct venue to collaterally attack actions taken within a judicial proceeding, absent clear proof of malicious intent or bad faith, which was not established.
However, the Court held respondent liable for his conduct during the IBP disciplinary proceeding. His failure to file a mandatory answer to the complaint and his filing of a Motion to Dismiss—a pleading explicitly prohibited under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline—demonstrated a disregard for the rules and the authority of the IBP. As a lawyer, he is presumed to know these procedural rules. This warranted a reprimand. The Court emphasized that while the disbarment case lacked merit, respondent’s nonchalant attitude towards the disciplinary process was unacceptable. He was sternly warned that a repetition of such conduct would be dealt with more severely.