G.R. No. A.C. No. 13550, October 4, 2023
Ariel Conducto Castillo, Complainant, vs. Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ariel Conducto Castillo filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza for alleged deceit and misrepresentation under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The dispute arose from the settlement of the estate of complainant’s deceased mother, Lagrimas. Complainant alleged that respondent, representing his sister Annelyn, deceived him into signing an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver concerning their mother’s bank account under the pretext of using funds for estate taxes. Complainant later repudiated this document. He further accused respondent of subsequently conniving with a bank employee to withdraw and distribute funds improperly and of sending an unauthorized collection letter to the buyer of a property (the Paule Property) that complainant claimed to own by virtue of a prior Deed of Absolute Sale.
Respondent denied all allegations. He asserted he acted as counsel for Annelyn and later her brother Arman in good-faith efforts to amicably settle the estate. He explained the Extrajudicial Settlement was initially suggested by the bank, and he later filed a proper petition for probate when the bank required a court order. Respondent denied any involvement in unauthorized withdrawals, stating Annelyn withdrew only her legitimate share as a co-depositor. Regarding the Paule Property, respondent insisted the property was part of the estate under a Contract to Sell, and his demand letter to the buyer was a lawful act to preserve estate assets, clearly indicating he was acting for the “estate of Lagrimas.”

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza should be held administratively liable for deceit, misrepresentation, and gross misconduct as alleged by the complainant.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint and absolved respondent of administrative liability. The Court emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and preponderant. The Court found complainant’s evidence insufficient to substantiate the serious charges.
On the allegations of deceit in procuring the Extrajudicial Settlement and misappropriating bank funds, the Court noted the complainant was assisted by his own counsel when he signed the document. Furthermore, the complainant failed to present substantial evidence, such as bank records or affidavits from the alleged co-conspiring bank employee, to prove respondent’s participation in any illicit withdrawal or distribution of funds. The act of filing a petition for probate demonstrated respondent’s adherence to legal procedures for estate settlement.
Concerning the demand letter for the Paule Property, the Court ruled it did not constitute deceit or unauthorized practice. Respondent sent the letter on behalf of the “estate,” aiming to preserve assets pending court appointment of an administrator. As co-heirs are co-owners of estate properties, any heir may act to benefit the entire estate. Respondent’s act was a zealous, albeit preliminary, effort to protect potential estate assets without usurping judicial authority, as he was simultaneously pursuing formal probate proceedings. The Court also considered the subsequent amicable settlement among the heirs and the withdrawal of the probate petition, which undermined the basis for the complaint. Thus, no violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility was established.