AC 12280; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12280, September 16, 2020
Edwin Jet M. Ricardo, Jr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Wendell L. Go, Respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Edwin Jet M. Ricardo, Jr., filed an administrative case for malpractice and unethical conduct against Atty. Wendell L. Go. The property in dispute, a house and lot in Cebu City originally owned by the complainant’s parents, was mortgaged to Standard Chartered Bank. Upon default, the bank foreclosed, and Integrated Credit and Corporate Services Co. (ICCSC) acquired it at auction. The complainant and his brother filed a civil case (CEB-33420) to annul the mortgage and foreclosure, claiming the property was a family home requiring their consent. While this case and related proceedings for a writ of possession (LRC Case No. 3732) were pending, ICCSC sold the property to the respondent, Atty. Go, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 2017. The respondent later entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for ICCSC in the writ of possession case in January 2018 and subsequently sent a demand letter to the complainant for payment of rentals.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent is guilty of unethical conduct for acquiring a property involved in litigation and for alleged extortion through the demand letter.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On the charge of acquiring a property under litigation, the prohibition under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, which forbids lawyers from acquiring property or rights being litigated, was found inapplicable. The legal logic is that the prohibition applies only when the lawyer acquires the property from his own client during the pendency of the suit. Here, the respondent purchased the property from ICCSC, which was not his client at the time of the sale. The respondent’s law firm had previously represented the original mortgagee, Standard Chartered Bank, in the extrajudicial foreclosure years earlier, but the bank was no longer a party to the pending cases at the time of the sale. The complainant failed to substantiate any connivance. On the charge of extortion, the Court ruled that a property owner’s act of sending a demand letter to occupants for payment of rentals, after having been established as the registered owner, is a legitimate exercise of a right and does not constitute extortion. The complainant bore the burden of proof in the administrative proceeding but failed to present substantial evidence to support his serious allegations.