G.R. No. A.C. No. 190 September 26, 1964
Marcos Medina, complainant, vs. Loreto U. Bautista, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marcos Medina approached respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista, the opposing counsel in a land reconveyance case, to seek an amicable settlement. Respondent agreed to settle for P500.00, accepted an initial payment of P35.00, and prepared a motion for extension to file an answer. However, respondent subsequently opposed his own motion and instead filed a motion to declare complainant in default, which was granted, leading to a judgment against complainant. Respondent later obtained additional payments from complainant totaling P500.00.
Respondent then prepared two fictitious deeds of sale concerning the disputed property, which falsely stated that substantial considerations (P8,000.00 and P1,200.00) had been paid when none were actually received. He procured his own client’s signature on one deed without explaining its contents. Furthermore, respondent received P800.00 from his client to be deposited with the court for the property’s repurchase but misappropriated the funds instead. These acts were uncovered by his co-counsel, leading to a corrective compromise agreement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista should be disbarred for acts constituting malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred. The Court found respondent guilty of multiple grave ethical violations constituting malpractice. His actions demonstrated a severe breach of trust and good faith required of lawyers. First, he betrayed complainant Medina by deceitfully securing a default judgment after feigning cooperation for a settlement and accepting money for it. Second, he prepared spurious legal documents with fictitious considerations, a fraudulent act that subverted judicial processes. Third, he exploited his own client’s ignorance by having her sign a document without full disclosure. Fourth, he misappropriated client funds entrusted to him for a specific court deposit, an act for which he was criminally convicted of estafa.
The Court emphasized that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude under the Rules of Court. The dereliction of duty was compounded by derogatory findings from the Court of Appeals, which highlighted his violation of fiduciary duty and bad faith. Lawyers are held to the highest standards of fidelity. Respondent’s pattern of deceit, fraud against both an opposing party and his own client, and conversion of client funds demonstrated a fundamental unfitness to remain a member of the legal profession. Consequently, the Court ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.